Long-term nuclear waste warning messages
Long-term nuclear waste warning messages
You're viewing a single thread.
These are a waste of money.
Dig a deep hole into the bedrock, put waste into the hole, backfill with clay and boulders.
Any civilization advanced enough to dig deep enough will quickly understand that the material is dangerous.
And if for some reason a primitive civilization does manage to get at the material they will notice that the material is harmful and avoid it.
Any civilization advanced enough to dig deep enough will quickly understand that the material is dangerous.
Well look, there's only really one civilisation we can look at to see if this is true, and that's our current civilisation. It turns out, though, that this civilisation learned to dig through clay and boulders to any depth a few centuries before it understood what radioactive nuclei do to the human body. It's fair to say a new civilisation would probably learn quickly why all of the people mining near the glowing rocks were dying in pain, but progress in that area would probably be measurable in agonising deaths, which is presumably what people are happy to spend money on these signs to avoid.
Having the same sample of one civilization, it has never been particularly deterred by threats of evil and curses on those who enter. If anything, that only increases its curiosity.
"The form of the danger is an emanation of energy. "
Energy ... Can we mine that?
How would they understand it's dangerous, harmful, and avoid it?
People getting sick?
Seems pretty simple to me.
That's what the last respondent under the "cultural research" section said and I too want to know why the only sane respondent was listed last.
Being listed last isn't bad.
It has been found that humans mostly remember that which was said first and last in a long presentation.
As for why it was listed last, I can think of a few reasons, the most logical is that you normally write an article in this sort of order:
Title
Summary
Description
Critics
Conclusion
And it is a fair way of doing it, first presenting the subject and and then critiquing it.
Over ten thousand years, erosion or earthquakes can expose the entrance, contaminating the site. People could dig a well or prospect for minerals. The suggestion of underground activity could suggest to them that it is a good place to mine, or even that there's a tomb or other interesting artifacts
If enough erosion or earthquakes occured to expose the entrance, I don't think a sign would fare too well.
Eh, that is is putting way more importance on coincidences than is actually warranted. But lets not loose sight of the general idea.
We need to deal with this waste, on that we are all agreed, we have limited resources to do so.
This means that we need to prioritize the actual waste containment rather than building some weird scarecrow to scare people away who may not even use the same concepts let alone language as we do.
It is ridiculous.
For me, it shows a compassion for the people of the future, which is inspiring in a way. Similar to the Voyager golden records, which are unlikely to ever be found by anyone, it is partially an exercise in understanding ourselves.
I'd rather they showed compassion by not wasting resources and built the proper waste disposal sites so that we can increase nuclear power use and shutdown coal/oil/gas.
Global warming is a way bigger threat than at worst a few localized hazards.
Any money diverted from waste disposal to this idea is wasted.