4 ms·

Is there something missing from the article or am I going mad? I don't understand how people came to the rational conclusion that it would be ok to dump thousan

Is there something missing from the article or am I going mad? I don't understand how people came to the rational conclusion that it would be ok to dump thousands of tons of this stuff into the sea. It seems to me that people collectively agreed to create a guaranteed disaster.

toyg 13y ago
Ecological concerns weren't really a thing until the '60s. There was a widespread belief that oceans could "take care" of everything; besides, in 30 years we'd all be flying to some other planet anyway.
- aestra 13y ago
  Which is still the belief in some parts of the world as well as some people. Silent Spring was published in 1962. It brought environmental problems to mainstream Americans. As a result of new awareness the EPA was created. What seems "obvious" now might not have always been obvious. Lets not forget there have been over 2,000 (known) nuclear weapons test in the world. 1032 done by the US alone, most in Nevada. It is well known that these tests released massive amounts of radiation that affects human health. Clouds carried the radiation across the United States into the Mid-West and Northeast and deposited it with rain.[1][2][3][4] [1] http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=390963 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=390963 [2] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4592/18.abstract?sid=ebaae089-599e-4d84-b440-a5a05b1ea2e4 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4592/18.abstract?sid=e... [3] http://www.ieer.org/latest/iodnart.html http://www.ieer.org/latest/iodnart.html [4] http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/fallout-from-nuclear-weapons-tests-and-cancer-risks http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/fallout-from-nuc...
saalweachter 13y ago
For me the best line was later in the article: > While this is worrying, some scientists argue that most of the containers will in all likelihood remain sealed for decades to come... "Thus solving the problem once and for all." "But--" "ONCE AND FOR ALL."
- VLM 13y ago
  The model they're operating under is a bell curve of failure rates where the bell is thankfully very wide and centered many decades in the future. Made up numerical example, if you have a lake where the bacteria can literally eat one barrel of crude per month, and 10 barrels at the bottom of the lake, you're in pretty good shape if one breaks open at a time spread over a century, but fairly well screwed if all 10 rust open at the same time at the six month mark.
ctdonath 13y ago
The problem was that they had thousands of tons of this stuff, all of it rather close to lots of people, all of it designed to kill lots of people, lots of it was unstable, and lots of people wanted to obtain & abuse it. The only apparent way to "make it go away" was to dump it in the sea ("out of sight, out of mind"). They knew it wasn't a good idea, but it was a whole lot better than any other solution they could come up with on short notice. Many decades later we're still postulating "what if" rather than dealing with actual consequences. Most people similarly discard household toxins: they know throwing batteries/CFLs/paint/etc in the general-purpose dumpster is not "ok", but for them it's an easy & effective solution. Disastrous for someone/something somewhere sometime, but not for "me, now".
BrandonMarc 13y ago
Given their understanding that the stuff likely wouldn't leak for a long time, they agreed to (maybe) create a huge disaster (far into the future). Yep, that sounds pretty normal to me. Especially considering this solution was probably less expensive than the alternatives. Hell, sounds like most kick-the-can-down-the-road politicians we have today, regarding a whole slew of issues. It's nice to see how far we've come in 70 years. 8-P

toyg 13y ago

Ecological concerns weren't really a thing until the '60s. There was a widespread belief that oceans could "take care" of everything; besides, in 30 years we'd all be flying to some other planet anyway.

aestra 13y ago
Which is still the belief in some parts of the world as well as some people. Silent Spring was published in 1962. It brought environmental problems to mainstream Americans. As a result of new awareness the EPA was created. What seems "obvious" now might not have always been obvious. Lets not forget there have been over 2,000 (known) nuclear weapons test in the world. 1032 done by the US alone, most in Nevada. It is well known that these tests released massive amounts of radiation that affects human health. Clouds carried the radiation across the United States into the Mid-West and Northeast and deposited it with rain.[1][2][3][4] [1] http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=390963 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=390963 [2] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4592/18.abstract?sid=ebaae089-599e-4d84-b440-a5a05b1ea2e4 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4592/18.abstract?sid=e... [3] http://www.ieer.org/latest/iodnart.html http://www.ieer.org/latest/iodnart.html [4] http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/fallout-from-nuclear-weapons-tests-and-cancer-risks http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/fallout-from-nuc...

saalweachter 13y ago

For me the best line was later in the article: > While this is worrying, some scientists argue that most of the containers will in all likelihood remain sealed for decades to come... "Thus solving the problem once and for all." "But--" "ONCE AND FOR ALL."

VLM 13y ago
The model they're operating under is a bell curve of failure rates where the bell is thankfully very wide and centered many decades in the future. Made up numerical example, if you have a lake where the bacteria can literally eat one barrel of crude per month, and 10 barrels at the bottom of the lake, you're in pretty good shape if one breaks open at a time spread over a century, but fairly well screwed if all 10 rust open at the same time at the six month mark.

ctdonath 13y ago

The problem was that they had thousands of tons of this stuff, all of it rather close to lots of people, all of it designed to kill lots of people, lots of it was unstable, and lots of people wanted to obtain & abuse it. The only apparent way to "make it go away" was to dump it in the sea ("out of sight, out of mind"). They knew it wasn't a good idea, but it was a whole lot better than any other solution they could come up with on short notice. Many decades later we're still postulating "what if" rather than dealing with actual consequences. Most people similarly discard household toxins: they know throwing batteries/CFLs/paint/etc in the general-purpose dumpster is not "ok", but for them it's an easy & effective solution. Disastrous for someone/something somewhere sometime, but not for "me, now".

BrandonMarc 13y ago

Given their understanding that the stuff likely wouldn't leak for a long time, they agreed to (maybe) create a huge disaster (far into the future). Yep, that sounds pretty normal to me. Especially considering this solution was probably less expensive than the alternatives. Hell, sounds like most kick-the-can-down-the-road politicians we have today, regarding a whole slew of issues. It's nice to see how far we've come in 70 years. 8-P