3 ms·
"not actually worth a huge effort" I think I'd argue that if we (human civilisation) are going to create a very long term hazard such as a radioactive waste du
by andyjohnson0 11y ago
"not actually worth a huge effort"
I think I'd argue that if we (human civilisation) are going to create a very long term hazard such as a radioactive waste dump, then we have a moral obligation to the people who it might one day endanger. Even if the number of such people is small, I think we still have a duty to them. We had a choice to build this thing, but they won't have a choice about living with it.
A cynical view is that the effort that went into the WIPP marker design was an effort to pre-empt objections to it being built. Gregory Benford (a physicist and science fiction author) was part of the design team, and he devoted part of a book, Deep Time [1], to his experience. Whatever the ultimate motivation of the US DOE and others, it seems like the design team took the ethical component of their task seriously.
[1] http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/benford.html http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/benford.html
- VLM 11y ago> a very long term hazard such as a radioactive waste dump That part is an oxymoron because radioactive waste decays. If you really want to stack future archaeologist bodies like cordwood, think of industrial waste, or coal plant fly ash waste, or mining waste. The half life of cobalt-60 is about half a decade... in a million years that a pure ingot would be "mostly harmless", because 1 over n to the 200000th means there won't be much Co-60 left in that ingot... For a good laugh assume a 1 Kg ingot how many years until the last atom decays? Sooner than you'd think. On the other hand arsenic, cyanide, and organometallics are forever, in a billion years you could crack open an industrial storage vat and kill everyone at an archaeological dig. Assuming their biochemistry remains the same, and they're not using drones to do the dig...
- andyjohnson0 11y ago"That part is an oxymoron because radioactive waste decays." Its a hazard until the waste decays. If the waste takes a long time to decay then its a long-term hazard. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24k years, for example. Other transuranic isotopes have half-lives measured in hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years. I agree with you about industrial waste, though.
- mikeash 11y agoWhy does nobody get worked up about unknown civilizations 10,000 years in the future stumbling across a chemical waste dump and getting killed by it? It's very odd that all the emphasis is on nuclear, when nuclear waste dumps will be a tiny fraction of the hazards created by current civilization.
- slgeorge 11y agoI'm sure your Mother told you 'two wrongs don't make a right' as a child though.
- mikeash 11y agoAnd? If one guy steals a hat, and another guy murders the storekeeper, it's reasonable to ask why people are more upset about the hat than the murder, and that does not in any way justify the hat.