4 ms·

> Idk, it's likely very expensive to maintain the physical copies. Maintaining a large paper archive is almost free in the grand scheme of things. The UK (and

> Idk, it's likely very expensive to maintain the physical copies. Maintaining a large paper archive is almost free in the grand scheme of things. The UK (and pretty much every single other Western nation) has an absolute ton of abandoned bunkers, silos and mines that were intended for Cold War disaster management. Most of them were built to very high standards in locations that won't flood or degrade significantly even if left cold and dark. Using them for archive storage is trivial. This seems like a very poor decision. We're seeing vulnerability after vulnerability pour in this year in just about every single OS out there and yet they think something like this is a good idea? The UK government appears to be trying to shut the country down without anybody noticing until it's too late; it's very weird to watch.

geraldwhen 3y ago
Paper will be destroyed, eventually, in the presence of incorrect humidity levels. It’s just a matter of when.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  Yes, you have to maintain the environment but these bunkers and facilities were designed with that factor taken into consideration. Yes, it isn't zero-effort, you can't just chuck your papers down a mineshaft and come back for them 50 years later, but it isn't in any way an insurmountable problem.
  - jcrawfordor 3y ago
    Any sort of modernization work in these bunkers is extremely expensive because of their underground construction, and most have very poor humidity control because of water seepage. "Poor humidity control" is a bit of an understatement, many Cold War bunkers will fill with water over a course of days if power to the dewatering pumps is interrupted. It's really not nearly as practical as people like to think to reuse them. Consider the case of AT&T, which owns a vast fleet of underground bunkers and keeps replacing them with a surface building on the same site because it is simply unaffordable to maintain and modernize them. New electrical service, for example, requires excavation and a ton of coring thick concrete. The costs add up fast, every little thing is more complex and more costly underground. Fire, one of the biggest concerns in archival practice, is also much harder to manage in underground facilities. Document archive facilities are designed as distinct fire cells to mitigate the risk, and incorporating these features into bunkers would likely require rebuild from scratch. Refrigerant fire suppression systems are difficult to install because of inadequate evacuation routes; Cold War era underground facilities rarely have more than one staircase and one ladder (and the ladder shaft might be full of sand!). The disused military bunkers of the United States are littered with failed document storage companies that have been unable to sufficiently retrofit them for this use. Seriously, I would guesstimate as many as one in six former ICBM silos was, at some point, owned by one of these operations. More than one per field usually. Almost none have succeeded, and the exceptions have the appearance that they are more hobby projects than viable services. In most cases they didn't even finish stripping the old equipment, which is a very costly process since it has to be cut up underground to hoist out.
- alexdbird 3y ago
  We have a number of old salt mines. Or would they be too dry?
  - geraldwhen 3y ago
    I don’t know the humidity of salt mines. I just know that paper is a weak format for permanent storage. Chiseled stone lasts far longer, possibly forever in the right conditions, but it’s impractical for records. Perhaps records only need to last lifetime + 70. That should make storage concerns a lot easier.
mschuster91 3y ago
> The UK (and pretty much every single other Western nation) has an absolute ton of abandoned bunkers, silos and mines that were intended for Cold War disaster management. Most of them were built to very high standards in locations that won't flood or degrade significantly even if left cold and dark. Here in Germany, a lot of our old bunkers are effectively gone, unusable to a point where you'd need to entirely rebuild them. And that's after just 30 years... bunkers also need maintenance, because otherwise rot and mold will set in.

geraldwhen 3y ago

Paper will be destroyed, eventually, in the presence of incorrect humidity levels. It’s just a matter of when.

15457345234 3y ago
Yes, you have to maintain the environment but these bunkers and facilities were designed with that factor taken into consideration. Yes, it isn't zero-effort, you can't just chuck your papers down a mineshaft and come back for them 50 years later, but it isn't in any way an insurmountable problem.
- jcrawfordor 3y ago
  Any sort of modernization work in these bunkers is extremely expensive because of their underground construction, and most have very poor humidity control because of water seepage. "Poor humidity control" is a bit of an understatement, many Cold War bunkers will fill with water over a course of days if power to the dewatering pumps is interrupted. It's really not nearly as practical as people like to think to reuse them. Consider the case of AT&T, which owns a vast fleet of underground bunkers and keeps replacing them with a surface building on the same site because it is simply unaffordable to maintain and modernize them. New electrical service, for example, requires excavation and a ton of coring thick concrete. The costs add up fast, every little thing is more complex and more costly underground. Fire, one of the biggest concerns in archival practice, is also much harder to manage in underground facilities. Document archive facilities are designed as distinct fire cells to mitigate the risk, and incorporating these features into bunkers would likely require rebuild from scratch. Refrigerant fire suppression systems are difficult to install because of inadequate evacuation routes; Cold War era underground facilities rarely have more than one staircase and one ladder (and the ladder shaft might be full of sand!). The disused military bunkers of the United States are littered with failed document storage companies that have been unable to sufficiently retrofit them for this use. Seriously, I would guesstimate as many as one in six former ICBM silos was, at some point, owned by one of these operations. More than one per field usually. Almost none have succeeded, and the exceptions have the appearance that they are more hobby projects than viable services. In most cases they didn't even finish stripping the old equipment, which is a very costly process since it has to be cut up underground to hoist out.
alexdbird 3y ago
We have a number of old salt mines. Or would they be too dry?
- geraldwhen 3y ago
  I don’t know the humidity of salt mines. I just know that paper is a weak format for permanent storage. Chiseled stone lasts far longer, possibly forever in the right conditions, but it’s impractical for records. Perhaps records only need to last lifetime + 70. That should make storage concerns a lot easier.

mschuster91 3y ago

> The UK (and pretty much every single other Western nation) has an absolute ton of abandoned bunkers, silos and mines that were intended for Cold War disaster management. Most of them were built to very high standards in locations that won't flood or degrade significantly even if left cold and dark. Here in Germany, a lot of our old bunkers are effectively gone, unusable to a point where you'd need to entirely rebuild them. And that's after just 30 years... bunkers also need maintenance, because otherwise rot and mold will set in.