Thu 21 Aug 2008

RSS Feed

Edited by Paul Hales

Published by Incisive Media Investments Ltd.

Terms and Conditions of use.

To advertise in Europe e-mail here

To advertise in Asia email here.

To advertise in North America email here.

Join the INQbot Mail List for a weekly guide to our news stories:

Subscribe

How to label nuclear waste for tomorrow's planetary custodians

Futuredrama

SINCE THE ARGUMENT for nuclear disarmament and an end to the proliferation of nuclear capabilities doesn’t seem to be going particularly well, scientists are now having to think of ways to warn future generations thousands of years in the future of the dangers buried in the ground beneath them.

Because language evolves at an alarming rate - 4 xampl, jst l%k w@ hs hapnd 2 lang n d lst 10 yrs - boffins are now pondering how best to warn our descendents, say in the year 52008, that directly underneath them lies a rotting nuclear arsenal, fouling up their groundwater supply.

In just 60 years, the human race has managed to create so much nuclear waste that we no longer have any room to store it all above ground. Countries are now having to build massive underground facilities where they can dump anything toxic or nuclear, where it will (hopefully) remain safely sealed for many hundreds of thousands of years until it poses no more risk.

But what signs or language can be used to ensure that people in the future won’t dig it up and think: “wow, that antique tube with the yellow and black markings will look simply fabulous in my living room” are not exactly obvious.

Take Egyptian hieroglyphs, for example, which even to very clever academic boffins remain something of a mystery. Or Latin, which any poor school kid forced to suffer through tedious lessons of it will tell you remains largely incomprehensible. And neither of those are more than a few thousand years old.

In order to warn future people of the potential dangers we left them in the form of plutonium or caesium-tainted waste, or even just to let them know where it is, in case by then they’ve figured out how to neutralise it all, semiotics (the study of signs), linguistics, history and anthropology all have a role to play.

Tom Peake of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says "The need to address the disposal of nuclear waste and its long-term potential hazard has been the impetus for research into long-term memory".

One possible way, put forward by US boffins at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a nuclear waste dump bang in the middle of the New Mexico desert, is to erect huge stone blocks engraved with symbols designed to last for thousands of years. Hmmm…. So, maybe, with that in mind, it would be wise not to dig anywhere near Stonehenge in the near future.

Europeans, in a move predictably led by the French, reckon that a better way of dealing with the problem is to cosy up to our nuclear waste and somehow integrate it into the rich fabric of our society. As they have been doing in France for as long as anyone can remember. Claude Pescatore, a specialist on waste management at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) Nuclear Energy Agency reckons this is the only way warnings can be transmitted from generation to generation through oral tradition and folklore.

"Disposal facilities can be made part of the fabric of the community rather than operated in isolation from it" he said.

As well as welcoming nuclear and toxic waste into our daily lives and becoming its friends and custodians, France also has a cunning second plan. The country’s National Agency for the Management of Nuclear Waste (ANDRA) is faffing about scribbling all sorts of non-verbal images on "permanent" paper which can apparently last thousands of years. They are also making these doodlings particularly attractive, in the hope that future generations won’t think they’re a load of rubbish and chuck them in the bin.

"If a document is going to succeed in extending the boundaries of memory, it has to be attractive," noted Patrick Charton, the man in charge of sustainable development at ANDRA.

Unfortunately, the rate mankind is going, the nuclear labels are going to have to be meaningful to the race of super cockroaches that inherits the planet once we've messed it up good and proper. µ

L’Inq
AFP

Comments

Nuclear vs. Fossil Waste Managment

Nuclear waste is much easier to handle than fossil fuel waste. Nuclear waste is solid and very easy to detect, after all. While most of the wastes produced by burning fossil fuels just disappear into the atmosphere with no feasible way to control them.

Of course, the very fact those wastes are invisible tend to make people feel better about them. Until you start reading how the north-pole could be ice-free in the summer just five years from now... Come to think of it, even that probably did not alarm nearly as many people as it should have.

Back to radioactive nuclear waste: one just needs to find a depleted salt mine away from tectonic plate boundaries and just bury the stuff as deep as possible.

Salt, you see, would not accumulate if ground water seeped through the relevant volume of earth since it is water-soluble. Clear?
posted by : Rasem Brsiq, 03 July 2008

Say No to evolution

I don't believe in evolution. If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

(BTW- This "How to label nuclear materials for future generations" thing has been a discussion for at least 20 years.)
posted by : michael, 03 July 2008

Everyone keeps missing the point

.. you don't have to worry about language changing that much in the short time this will be a problem. The human race went from first powered flight to landing on the moon in 75 years. One lifetime. Are people really stupid enough to think that we'll still be living like this in 10,000 years or whatever? Even 500 years will change our technology beyond what most people can imagine today.

Give it 100 years, 200 tops and it'l be cheap enough to lift things off-planet that we can just throw all the waste into the sun, even if we haven't cracked fusion by then.

Worrying about 10,000 year half-life's is just plain stupid. Do they think humanity will be taking a lunch break for the next 10 millenia and not inventing anything? Duhh.....
posted by : Ste Cork, 03 July 2008

What if?

Anyone that knows about the history of the human race knows it's two steps forward, one step backwards. Sometimes two steps forward three steps backwards. Technological and social evolution don't go in a continuous line forward.

Civilizations rise and fall, things are forgotten. It's very easy to imagine a relatively near future where because of energy depletion, climate change, and war where humanity has to go back to more primitive living conditions.

Obviously that wouldn't last forever, eventually progress would happen again. Still, during the dark age much information would be forgotten. It's happened before, it'll happen again. That's the contingency this planning is meant to address.
posted by : Nate, 03 July 2008

True but...

Science seems to be free from the shackles of religion now.. For the most part. No more persecutions for theories. And take the dark ages for example. Rome was decaying and was brought down by less advanced civilizations which threw the whole area back hundreds of years. But a lot of that information was regained during the crusades from the middle east. These days, with information so readily available, nothing short of mass Nuclear winter would cause that to happen again. Even IF that happened their are millions of copies of books where once there would be a hand full. All this talk is pointless. If the labels get to old, we can replace them.
posted by : Greg, 04 July 2008

Excellent

Sylvie:

Disregard the naysayers and critics. Excellent article about an important topic.
posted by : hoohoo, 04 July 2008

Misconception?

Go spend a few days working with radioactive compound and you'll know that they are not as dangerous as the majority of population think. 99.9% of the waste can't even penetrate your skin. The radiation you receive from the sun and from the natural radioactive material used to build your house is more than 100 times stronger than swimming in the nuclear waste anyway.
posted by : Rey, 04 July 2008

can I point out the bleedin obvious?

Firstly, the best way to protect future generations from deeply buried nuclear waste is to make sure there's absolutely NOTHING left to indicate its presence. The logic of this is as follows:

If a future human society has the technology to locate buried nuclear waste hundreds of metres below ground, then said humans will probably also have the means to detect radiation and the knowledge to avoid it.

If a future human society has gone feral then the last thing they want is signs saying 'dig here'.

Every time I read about this issue I have to laugh. Says something. Not sure what tho :/
posted by : mad cow, 04 July 2008

Temporary Problem

I guess I see this as a relatively temporary problem. You don't think in a hundred years we'll have some sort of tech that eats this stuff and craps sunshine? We're all looking at this stuff in today's terms, but a hundred years from now or even if it's a thousand years from now, this is going to be one of those things we look back at and say, "remember how worried we were about ____ waste? What a waste of resources and time."

I suppose it's always possible that the Malthus lovers get their way and human civilization just 'ends' in wake of something else (robots perhaps), but I've always felt humans get wiser with time as a trend and this won't be an issue.

So sure, let's put it in hollowed salt mine, fill it it some radiation absorbing material and mark the place with a giant skull-and-crossbones.... at least until our little nano-harvesters are ready to turn that death pile into marshmallows or something.
posted by : Majicebe, 04 July 2008
IThound
Search for solutions, reports & analysis

Newsletter signup