4 ms·
They note toward the end of the essay that the best deterrent may be the illness suffered by the first explorers of the site and that in fact, that may be a che
by karzeem 17y ago
They note toward the end of the essay that the best deterrent may be the illness suffered by the first explorers of the site and that in fact, that may be a cheaper warning system than everything they've discussed building.
In any case, if we can make the arguably optimistic assumption that technology won't suffer any major setbacks in the next 10,000 years, cultures at the end of that time frame should have figured out how to safely explore a radioactive waste site. Even we know how to do it today, if you count sending in robots as exploration.
As the writers say, as long as the radioactivity stays contained, the damage it can/will cause is relatively self-limiting.
- delackner 17y agoRead more closely. Early in the paper they discuss that strong warnings might go unheeded as the danger is far below ground. They then suggest that it might be most effective to actually contaminate the surface level of the site with low-levels of radioactive material so as to purposefully kill people that invade the site. They then suggest doing calculations to see whether the expected casualties over 10,000 years would be worth it. Icky but cold and calculated thinking about a cold topic.