Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This is not a place of honor

wipp.energy.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 287 posts

Re: This is not a place of honor

#41

Post by JoeAltmaier »

andrewflnr wrote: post #37
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22

Seems like overkill. What's a few poisoned people in 12,000 years? I imagine that people dying around the site will be the most effective ward to keep others away.

What's a few poisoned people in 12,000 years? They're people, is the important point. If nothing else, this is about keeping a clean conscience, knowing that you did your best to save them.

...and success is measured in minimizing that number. The most effective way might be, to kill interlopers as immediately and unambiguously as possible. Not to attract pilgrims for centuries with mysterious messages and monoliths, who go home to die of unknown sores and blood problems.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#42

Post by apsec112 »

refurb wrote: post #28
apsec112 wrote: post #15

We should just assume that nuclear waste lasts forever, like a lot of chemical waste does, and then treat it the same as the equivalent class of chemical waste. When someone says "10,000 years", people start thinking about how to wait it out. When someone says "forever", people give up on waiting it out, and start thinking about more realistic safety measures.

I'm curious, what chemical waste can you not safely dispose of? All organic compounds can be incinerated at a high enough temperate to destroy them (even nerve agents). The only thing I can think of would be metal poisons, but even those can be turned into a form that is less toxic.

Don't think there are any non-toxic forms of mercury or arsenic. There are forms that are less bioavailable, but that's equally true of nuclear waste.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#43

Post by santoshalper »

ProAm wrote: post #33
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm. One million years an counting so far?

But we've only been relevant for ~7,000 and if we do not make the Earth inhospitable ourselves in the next 10k years then the chances of a cataclysmic event are ever increasing to assist us. 99.9% of all animals ever to exist on the Earth are extinct, we're not that special.

We're pretty special, at least in the context of this planet. Science tells us that we are by far the most intelligent creatures to live on Earth in its observable history, and the only ones to meaningfully modify it.

In the very least, we are the only creatures to inhabit Earth, that if we become extinct, it is somewhat likely that we are both the victim and the perpetrator.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#44

Post by bobbles »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #17

It's a fascinating problem, a way to communicate the concept that this is not a treasure trove, not a historical site, but something dangerous that was meant to be sealed away for many thousands of years due to its hazardous nature. The parting thoughts seem most telling to me thought. They wonder if this really worth it, since in the end coming into contact with the waste is a bit of a self-limiting problem, in that…

All I can picture is an Indiana Jones like situation, where everything that would be done to protect the site will just be interpreted as something valuable being stored in the most dangerous section.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#45

Post by santoshalper »

bcg1 wrote: post #38
e12e wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a very good documentary on the subject. For me it really drove home the idea that current nuclear power comes with too expensive externalities in the form of "keep this stuff safe for 100 000 years". We've never come close to doing something like that as a species. I don't think we ever will.

Kind of makes you wonder if its really such a good idea to smash atoms just to boil some water.

We already live in the orbit of a giant nuclear reactor that puts out so much energy that its waste energy can power our entire world for any foreseeable future. Why build our own?

Re: This is not a place of honor

#46

Post by someguydave »

danieltillett wrote: post #35
greglindahl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It (this particular plutonium isotope) is also really useful for building bombs. (edit: made it more clear what I meant)

Yes. I would tend to suggest that it would be better to hide the waste very deep and destroy all knowledge of where it was buried.

Do you really think that option is feasible? Even the ancient Romans were unsuccessful at damning the memories of their enemies.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#47

Post by someguydave »

greglindahl wrote: post #31
someguydave wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to an advanced civilization that a nuclear radioactive waste dump may well be of value. Actually it has value to our civilization, because much of the low-grade uranium "waste" could be put into breeder reactors and turned into plutonium - and reused as nuclear fuel. Read about it here: https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_163.shtml

It (this particular plutonium isotope) is also really useful for building bombs. (edit: made it more clear what I meant)

Yes but is also could be used to supply the entire world with Western levels of electric power.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#48

Post by samplonius »

beefield wrote: post #40
apsec112 wrote: post #15

We should just assume that nuclear waste lasts forever, like a lot of chemical waste does, and then treat it the same as the equivalent class of chemical waste. When someone says "10,000 years", people start thinking about how to wait it out. When someone says "forever", people give up on waiting it out, and start thinking about more realistic safety measures.

I am pretty sure that long before 10 000 years has lapsed, this so called waste is no more considered waste. For example, my understanding is that you can use current waste as a fuel in thorium cycle.

The plan in the US was to enrich waste in breeder reactors, mix in some fresh fuel, and re-use it. It was the nuclear fuel cycle. Lots of resources on the technology.

There were two problems. The use of breeder reactors had some proliferation concerns: they can be used to make warheads. Not a big deal in the US, as the US can already make warheads, but harder if you want to export nuclear waste reprocessing to other countries.

Transporting the waste was deemed risky. More so after 9/11, as fresh waste is so radioactively hot, it needs to be kept in water, or it will overheat. If you crash a plane into a transport vehicle, or a re-processing plant, it will create quite a mess.

So there is no way the nuclear waste will stay in the ground for 10,000 years. I suspect it will be less than a hundred years before someone digs it up, and reprocesses it.

Burying nuclear waste is itself waste.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#49

Post by morgante »

labster wrote: post #23

It's really interesting to me to see architecture used for its typical antithesis. It is typically used to bring a sense of bring out positive emotions, to inspire, to bring facility to humanity, to sanctify. Here it is being used to desecrate, to decrease utility, to ward away. As a hacker, I'm used to the thought of "what is the worst possible way I can make this UI", but it's cool to see it applied in an entirely…

> It is typically used to bring a sense of bring out positive emotions

I'm not quite sure about that.

Lots of architecture is used to intimidate, to signal power and that you should be afraid.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#50

Post by samplonius »

dbrower wrote: post #30

I've read the report several times (it keeps coming back every 5-7 years or so) since publication, and I've never felt like a reliable solution had wither been found, or was in the offing. There is good thinking, but the problem itself seems very daunting. I think that is the real lesson.

The solution was found already: keep reprocessing the nuclear waste into new fuel.
Post reply on HN