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

31–40 of 287 posts

Re: This is not a place of honor

#31

Post by greglindahl »

someguydave wrote: post #18
danieltillett wrote: post #5

I would have thought that to an advanced civilization that a nuclear radioactive waste dump may well be of value. I do think worrying about radioactive waste given how much carbon dioxide we have dumped into the atmosphere is a bit like bandaging a stubbed toe on an amputated leg.

>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)

Re: This is not a place of honor

#32

Post by rdtsc »

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, to inspire, to bring facility to humanity, to sanctify. Here it is being used to desecrate, to decrease utility, to ward away.

Not that uncommon. I have known 2 architects who used architecture against probably what they learned in school or dreamed of building.

One was designing casinos. Apparently they did "dark patterns" before computer UI people did it. Think about open places, to inspire and generate positive emotions and so on, well their guidelines was to entrap, confuse, isolate and promote whatever kept people playing longer. She eventually quit and became a housewife.

The other one, lost their job where they designed office buildings, and the only job they found in their town was building prisons. Talk about soul crushing. Well, they said they didn't care it was just a job. But, I know it would bring me down if I was building that.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#33

Post by ProAm »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29
ProAm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality 10,000 yrs is probably longer than humans will be relevant on Earth.

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.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#34

Post by danieltillett »

manachar wrote: post #7
danieltillett wrote: post #5

I would have thought that to an advanced civilization that a nuclear radioactive waste dump may well be of value. I do think worrying about radioactive waste given how much carbon dioxide we have dumped into the atmosphere is a bit like bandaging a stubbed toe on an amputated leg.

They're worried about people in the future who may not know about radioactive waste. This location will be dangerous for a very long time in a way that's invisible. Carbon dioxide is certainly a concern, but most of its problems will never produce a place that people shouldn't stumble or explore because of unseeable danger. I often think of the story of the Goiânia accident to be applicable. Four people ended up dead…

Understand the reason for the worry, but given the climate change that has been kicked off by the CO2 released to date I don’t think people are going to be worrying too much about tripping over a radioactive waste dump.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#35

Post by danieltillett »

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. 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.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#36

Post by yellowapple »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #26
periphrasis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admittedly, I haven't read the article, but the tone of the message suggests that it's not meant for future generations of our civilization, but for future generations of whatever cultures come after our civilization is gone. There's a pretty remarkable old English poem that survived from Dark Ages Britain, in which the author marvels at the ruins of Roman Britain, wondering what giants must have once inhabited the l…

...and as such, any large monumental works are more likely to attract attention than to repel it. May even become a cult place of worship. More effective to bury and obfuscate the site entirely?

If it becomes a "cult place of worship", then that's probably Mission Accomplished; the faithful have a tendency to defend holy places against those seeking to defile them (read: dig into them and expose the world to nuclear waste). If they can be convinced that such sites are "God's Temples" and that defiling them will unleash all sorts of plagues (which they very likely will), then the current generation's job is done.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#37

Post by andrewflnr »

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.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#38

Post by bcg1 »

e12e wrote: post #16
mooreds wrote: post #8

See also Into Eternity, a movie about how the Finns are dealing with this, with a 100,000 year timeframe. http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/

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.

Re: This is not a place of honor

#39

Post by JoeAltmaier »

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.

Perhaps they are extinct because we've been erasing them as we reformat the earth to be more congenial to ourselves? Their extinction is not a signal that we may go extinct ourselves; just the opposite.

Mesopotamian Ziggurat, Teppe Sialk, dates from around 2900BC (~5000 yo). Gobekli Tepe 12,000 years old?

Re: This is not a place of honor

#40

Post by beefield »

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.
Post reply on HN