Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

More Complaints About Yucca Mountain 83

Posted by michael from the places-not-to-build-your-dream-house dept.
AstroAce writes "I saw this article about the Yucca Mountain Nuclear waste dump, and was doubly intrigued. Not only did I do lab tech work on a YM grant as an undergrad, but my science advisor said the best thing I could do for science would be to become a Congressman, and get hold of the purse strings (remember SSC, the Super-conducting Super Collider?) I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions. However, they don't seem to be gregarious enough to be politicians. Are there examples of both?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Complaints About Yucca Mountain More

More Complaints About Yucca Mountain

Comments Filter:

  • The real problem (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hell O'World ( 88678 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @09:42AM (#7289759)
    The real problem is that geeks have morals.

  • Objective? (Score:4, Funny)

    by mopslik ( 688435 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @09:53AM (#7289855)

    You're overly optimistic.

    I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions.

    So instead of bribing my Joe-Schmoe-congressman with a wad of cash, I'll have to bribe my tech-geek-congressman with the latest WiFi gadget instead?

    • Re:Objective? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Deanasc ( 201050 )
      No you'll still have to bring me a WiFi gadget AND a wad of cash.
    • I'll have to bribe my tech-geek-congressman with the latest WiFi gadget instead?

      Don't worry, the geek won't get elected in the first place because he uses the wrong Linux distribution.

      Geeks are religious, too, just not always about mythical deities.
    • Since he is really good at making a detailed, objective analysis of the issues, and arriving at rational conclusions and actions I think we should elect Daryl McBride to Congress.

  • Rational, Objective? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ApharmdB ( 572578 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @10:01AM (#7289924)
    You think geeks are more rational & objective than other people? You must read Slashdot just for the articles then. Haven't been reading any posts, now have we?

  • Root for Rationality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @10:02AM (#7289929) Homepage Journal

    I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens

    They could be, but not necessarily.

    Just as the rest of the world gets caught up in emotional irrational evaluation of how government ought to be run, so can geeks.

    Not a few geeks are emotionally involved with science and technology. That attachment can be an asset when it helps to drive scientific progress.

    But it can be a liability when it comes time to evaluate whether it is best to spend money on fish or bicycles, which are the kinds of decisions and value judgements confronting elected representatives.

    Probably the most significant contribution an elected geek could make is to push in every possible way for the population to become more educated, more rational, willing more to use powers of analysis than to fall back on emotion and feeling. Unfortunately, the latter traits are becoming too well developed because they are useful pry bars in advertising as well as in their long-standing role in swaying political opinion.

    Early childhood education programs will really bring the most bang for the buck if you look in the long term.

    • If we had a government which attempted strictly to solve problems *scientifically* instead of 'economically', we'd be in much better shape.

      The problem with the existing government is that it is based on economic premises and principles which are, fundamentally, arbitrary.

      Science would not have invented the Federal Reserve System.

      • Re:Geeks should rule for a while. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @11:33AM (#7290996) Homepage Journal

        economic premises and principles which are, fundamentally, arbitrary.

        True economic principles are actually quite sterile and free of value-judgements, just as science is.

        Science, like economics, can be applied ruthlessly to any problem without regard for fundamental values that people like to hold.

        Take taxation policy, for example.

        Science and economics can help you evaluate the effects of different policies.

        But in real life, people place different value on different propositions. These propositions can be argued forever without resolution because of differing underlying value judgements that people have, Eg.,

        "Taxing rich people is unfair to people who deserve wealth."


        "Having hungry children raised by incompetent parents is bad and society has a right to fix it."
        You will get all kinds of opinions about how what value society should place overall on how happy or unhappy some people will be in certain situations and quantifying things. Once quantified, science and economics can take things from there.

        It's clear that people are unhappy when their money is taken away from them and are happy when money is given to them. But saying that one person's happiness outweighs another person's unhappiness is a pure value judgement.

        Sound principles of economics and science can be overlaid upon any value system you like: libertarian, socialistic, totalitarian, democracy, nihilism, theocracy.

  • Are there examples of both? (Score:5, Funny)

    by neglige ( 641101 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @10:03AM (#7289948)
    Uh, yeah, wasn't the internet invented by a vice president, a few years ago?

  • Geeks with political power (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I seem to recall a scientist/inventor with political power they talked about in my history class. His name was Thomas Jefferson, anyone heard of him?

    He seems to have been responsible for putting into the Constitution the American concepts of intellectual property--copyright, patent, trademark, etc.

    If you let an inventor write laws, of course he is going to write laws that favor inventors. Then lawyers, who are much better with laws than inventors, will interpret those laws in the way that makes the most
    • So the correct answer to our problems is the oldest one. "Kill all the lawyers."

    • His name was Thomas Jefferson, anyone heard of him?

      This is Slashdot. Unless he's an obscure Apple employee or FSF spokesperson, I'd say "no".

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Ben Franklin was a good businessman and PR man. So he is the one known as the inventor, when in fact TJ probably invented [about.com] at least as many items [virginia.edu] as Ben Franklin did. Since Ben Franklin was the shrewd businessman-type, and Thomas Jefferson was the always-losing-money-on-every-business-he-tried type (and his businesses were often based on the newest and latest technologies), you'd think Ben would be more likely to come up with patent, trademark, and copyright laws than TJ would.

        TJ created the patent system [earlyamerica.com] t
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • I honestly didn't know the stuff you've written, thank you!

            I didn't know it either. Thanks for raising the issue and inspiring me to do a little quick and dirty research.

            As someone who lives about 15 minutes from Monticello and has seen his water clock, dumbwaiter, duplicator (basically, a second quill that apes your movements), and other inventions, I knew that TJ was a hardcore inventor, and went seeking some resources to prove it. The stuff about his work in the patents field was just an added bonus
    • If you let an inventor write laws, of course he is going to write laws that favor inventors. Then lawyers, who are much better with laws than inventors, will interpret those laws in the way that makes the most money for whoever hired them.

      This is the most insightful comment I've read in a long time. It's almost sad that it was posted AC.

    • Umm, no. Jefferson was generally opposed to any form of monopoly. He even questioned the cost-benefit tradeoff of the "limited" monopolies we call Copyrights and Patents. An interesting discussion, with very interesting quotes is available here [upenn.edu]. .

      I especially like the following Jefferson quote:

      I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additons would have pleased me... Article 9. Monopoli

    • What about carter? He was a bloody nuclear engineer [engology.com]. I did habitat for humanity work in my first stint at college, and seeing the home I built slowly turn into a crack house in a period of 5 years filled me with pride.
  • The Progressive movement was based on belief in the Scientific Method and it's application to politics.

    • The Progressive movement was based on belief in the Scientific Method and it's application to politics.

      First of all, I presume that by "progressive" you're talking about the Leftists and Socialists who were formerly known (incorrectly) as "Liberals"...

      "...based on belief in the Scientific Method"? I think not! They ignore HUGE chunks of science in order to promulgate their irrational beliefs into some kind of a Socialist Utopia.

      These are the same people claiming that so-called "Global Warming" is goi

      • No, actually I was refering to the various entities of the "Progressive Party" active in the 1912, 1924, and 1948 presidential elections. Some one must have slept through sophmore poli-sci classes...

  • Point of Contention (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yanray ( 686150 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @10:15AM (#7290082)
    The major problem that I see with this idea is the population density of geeks is not significant anyplace in the US (or other countries so as not to be a culturally insensitive clod) to get a congressmen or senator or president elected to significant public office. Between that and the lack of any political consensus on many issues (read: all issues) I find the very concept that we could agree bunk. (Shit we can't even agree that we landed on the moon or that the holocaust happened)

    However the point of the statement was the idea that scientific funding is needs to be a more prominent issue in politics today. This we as a community could do. We have to influence the political structure that this is an issue we are all concerned with and should be an issue for political debate in the upcoming election year. This is the greater question to such topics as environmentalism, fuel costs, and space programs. Ask your senator, congressman, presidential candidates what scientific topics interest them. If they say something like environmental aspects of cow droppings in Nevada have them shot. If they say development small nuclear reactors in Alaska for outlying communities give them the benefit of the doubt.

  • Rational decision possible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frans Faase ( 648933 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @10:22AM (#7290155) Homepage
    Rational decisions are only possible when sufficient reliable and objective information is available. The kind of decisions that politicians are facing, generally do not meet these criteria.

    The real problem is that we live in a world with limited resources, both with respect to materials and knowledge. For these reason we tend to listen to those people that sound convincing. The best way to prevent corruption, is to prevent concentration of power. (It is a known law that the power attracts the corruptable.) The main disadvantage of preventing this, is the slowdown of decision making and the danger of bureaucracy. There is a general tendency for concentration of power.

    It is also true that those that sound convincing often believe that rational decisions are not possible (because no reliable information does exists) and that their popularity amongh the masses affirm the correctness of the decisions they have made.

    One could conclude that the qualities of decisions made in any democratic system can never be greater than the average quality of understanding of the people in that democracy. That is one of the greatest weaknesses of true democracy.

    • One could conclude that the qualities of decisions made in any democratic system can never be greater than the average quality of understanding of the people in that democracy.

      I agree.

      But much like any distributed system, all sources of information benefit from more participants than less, if they can be kept organized. This is also the primary argument supporting the open-source movement. Distributed participation.

      So, the alternative seems worse: To reduce the sources of information to "official ch
      • Even if there is optimal information exchange, my conclusion still seems to holds. If the majority does not truely understand a certain freely available fact (or cannot judge its correctness) it is not likely that any decision (made by the majority) based on this fact, can be good.

        It seems to me that if there is no optimal information exchange that the quality of the decision can only be worse.

        It seems to me that open-source platforms, open discussion platforms (such as /.), and wiki's (such as wikipedi

        • Seems like you're drawing an arbitrary line between educated and not. I think you may simply be noticing an averaging effect from inclusivity. So, in the same way, the "facts" of an event or situation will become diluted when aspects of emotion and opinion come into play.

          So, I'm saying the this emotion, this effect, is part of the situation. From sentencing guidelines to intervening in FL with vegetables, the information flow is tainted. The "quality of the decision is worse" than ? There is no Vulcan
    • The real problem is that we live in a world with limited resources, both with respect to materials and knowledge.

      Exactly why we need a SPACE-FRIENDLY geek in office! The world we live in with all it's "scarce resources" is surounded by whirling rocks and bits of dust and gas and with more free solar energy than can ever be harvested by mankind... all we need to do it reach for it.

  • Politics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bluGill ( 862 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @10:45AM (#7290380)

    The problem with geeks in politics is you realize there are a lot of issues that geeks are not good at. Abortion is a really hot button for many people. Can you deal with it in a way that will not put off so many people that you won't be elected no matter how good you are otherwise? And that is just one hot issue. What is good for the country is not nessicarly what is good for seniors, and seniors control a lot of votes, so Socal Security reform basicly cannot happen no matter how bankrupt it is. How will you as a geek deal with this so that you can get elected.

    There is only so much money coming into congress. As a congressman you get to choose how to spend it, and if more should be borrowed if it isn't enough. Want to fund a super collider, but there is not enough money coming in, you either need to convince everyone else to drop something they like for something you like, or you need to borrow more money. And the 533 other people in congress will all be trying to get you to drop your super colider for their pet project.

    That is even assuming your other ideals don't get in the way. Which school of ecconomics are you in? Classical, Marix, Keynes, Autstian, (Yeah, I can't spell a one of them), one that I've not hear of yet, or even one of your own design? How do you deal with those of other schools?

    One congressman doesn't get anything passed alone. Can you compromise?

    • As a congressman you get to choose how to spend it, and if more should be borrowed if it isn't enough. Want to fund a super collider, but there is not enough money coming in, you either need to convince everyone else to drop something they like for something you like, or you need to borrow more money. And the 533 other people in congress will all be trying to get you to drop your super colider for their pet project.

      And then, they still fail to realize that, perhaps, Congress shouldn't even be dabbling in
    • Abortion is a really hot button for many people. Can you deal with it in a way that will not put off so many people that you won't be elected no matter how good you are otherwise

      Incubational holding tanks/wombs. No dead infant problems, no pregnancy. Just remove the embryo, incubate it, and wait until it's old enough for adoption (or use it to power, say, our future robot overlords).

      There is only so much money coming into congress. As a congressman you get to choose how to spend it, and if more should

  • What makes me the most nervous is that every one seems to assume that the status quo is peachy?

    There is actually no great hurry in moving spent fuel away from reactors--it can be stored safely for many decades in dry casks.

    So what if the Yucca site isn't good for 10,000 years, maybe its good for a thousand. At least the waste would be consolidated at one secure site instead of spread out everywhere. If a better repository is found, move it.

    There is also a lot more radioactive waste than just spent r


    • If a better repository is found, move it.

      But moving it is one of the most dangerous things you can do with it. An objection to moving it isn't an endorsement of the safety of on-site storage. It's an admission that we're in a messed up situation where there are no good answers yet.

    • All this "waste" is recycleable. If it is stored onsite, and a headache for management it can help drive them to recycle the stuff, which is a real solution to the problem. Out of sight is out of mind, and when you move this waste to underground nobody sees it and nobody who can do something to solve the problem thinks about it.

      Not to mention that Yucca mountain doesn't have the capacity to store all the "waste" that we already have much less what we will produce while it is open.

  • Rational decisions, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Violet Null ( 452694 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @10:46AM (#7290408)
    I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions

    You mean, like asking a group of two or more geeks...
    • Whether Gnome is better than KDE?
    • Whether vi is better than emacs?
    • Whether perl is really a descendent of BASIC?
    • Which flavor/distribution of *nix is best?
    Yeah, you get some rational answers there. Face it. Geeks are people. People are irrational. Therefore, geeks are irrational.

    Now, the computers! That's who should lead us! Perfectly rational, and I see no downside to putting control of our military in their (metaphorical) hands...
    • Blockquote the parent:

      You mean, like asking a group of two or more geeks...

      Whether Gnome is better than KDE?

      Whether vi is better than emacs?

      Whether perl is really a descendent of BASIC?

      Which flavor/distribution of *nix is best?

      Yeah, you get some rational answers there. Face it. Geeks are people. People are irrational. Therefore, geeks are irrational.

      I don't believe that geeks are as irrational as the general populace, and certainly not as irrational as you make them out to be. While geeks may disa

  • Politics only has Politicians (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) * on Thursday October 23, 2003 @10:55AM (#7290518) Journal
    It doesn't matter one's background (in fact, the US Congress has quite a diverse background), once you are in politics for a career, you are a "politician". The perception that *anyone* is outside the sphere of influence for debate is absurd. I abhor the concept of "outside the beltway" in Washing DC terms, where someone is marketing themselves to bring new opinions to the floor. The opinions are usually known, it's the votes that count.

    Politics is the business of making deals and comprimises according to an ever-shifting value system. One looks out for the constituents, ganering votes, but also one's reputation (perception, not reality, is king here). Also, to afford others the possibility of compromising in your favor, you compromise in theirs at some point.

    On top of all that, you have the standard environment of cynicsim, complecency, and cronyism that any organization would have. People organize into parties because they realize a group is stronger than an individual, especially when a complex democratic process is used (quorum, majority, super-majority, comittee, sub-committee).

    I don't have a full grasp of all the details, but at least I know BS when I hear it. All people in politics are politicians. This doesn't have anything to do with their morals or the issues they take a position on. And all freshmen arrivials get trained in the procedural steps to move about the houses.

    mug

  • science and politics don't really mix (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Goldsmith ( 561202 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @11:11AM (#7290752)
    My dad was a politician, and I'm a scientest.

    The main problem is the lack of a common view between both types of people. Scientests tend to be able to plan for the future much better than politicians. We don't care as much about what happens next year, or next election cycle, as we do 50 years from now.

    The problem is, really planning ahead will not get you re-elected, and in the political world it takes more than one term to really learn how the game works.

    Most geeks who find their way into government will end up being advisors and sitting on commitees where long term thinking is appreciated, and the pressure to perform this minute is reduced.

    The whole fallacy with your argument is in thinking that politics is about problem solving. It's not. Politics is about getting re-elected, first and foremost. Geeks in general (I didn't say all of us) lack the abilities and desire to perform that type of job.
  • Al Gore and Ralph Nader are probably the two biggest policy geeks to have run in recent history. Look what happened there. Bush doesn't even read the newspapers and Cheney's followers prefer cherry-picking intelligence they like (aka intellectual dishonesty).

    The American media and public it feeds don't have time for in-depth policy discussion, Kobe Bryant, OJ and Scott what's-his-face get more airtime for simple criminal trials. No geek is going to win without a brilliant media campaign that can wrap this
  • While reading the article, I thought, "Why don't we just take take all of our nuclear waste and dump it into live volcanoes?" That way it would melt and be rendered harmless.

    How about that?

    • And then be spewed en-mass into the atmosphere when it erupts...

      Good Plan.

    • Re:about Yucca Mountain (Score:3, Informative)

      by Zarquon ( 1778 )
      The reverse of that, burying it in capsules near a subduction zone, is a more viable option, but still controversial. Issues include:
      -rates of subduction (geological processes are _slow_)
      -no provision for inspection
      -They are by definition in zones of high seismic activity, increasing probability of containment breach.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • I like the idea of chemeolithotropes or something similiar being designed to use radioactive energy in a manner that will allow them to fend off a spiraling mutation rate or halt mutation altogether. In other words to a new form of life that lives off the radioactivity inherent in certain things as means to capturing energy. Radiolithotropes?

        Than we encapsulate them in a alloy sphere they will not eat, and send them to mars at a speed and angle likely to penetrate the crust at a 100-200m depth and seed

    • Nuclear waste + rocket + sun. 'nuf said.

      Though, the thought of NASA becoming our 'nuclear trash-man' is both sad and amusing at the same time...

  • I'd keep that to myself (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23, 2003 @12:30PM (#7291643)
    Dude, if my advisor told me that the best thing I could do for science was to get elected to congress, I'd be seriously depressed and/or insulted. He's telling you that you suck, man!
  • no no, no clusters this time.
    Imagine a conference:
    some guy presents his new invention
    -This system controls millions of bacteria...
    and a geek from the FreeBSD party shouts from the back:
    In Soviet Russia, bacteria controls the system!
  • Several politicians carry or carried amateur radio licenses to their death. There was one significant congresscritter in Arizona who did, up until he died a few years ago. For the life of me, though, I can't think of his name.

    Point being, there is room for a geek element (as ham radio is certainly geeky) in the halls of congress.

    Now here's a counter point - people are right in commenting that we're probably not gregarious enough to be politicians, or at least stereotypical politicians. To take a care

  • Let's see, there's Herbert Hoover, an engineer credited with being a tough administrator during food shortages caused by World War I and then, some would say, bringing about the Great Depression thereafter.

    And we have Jimmy Carter, now seen as a great humanitarian, but often criticized as an ineffective politician.

    Yasser Arafat was also trained as an engineer, and I venture to guess that there are probably extremely diverging opinions as to his effectiveness as the 'best representative of other citizens

  • I thought that only as a Scientist or at least a curious thinker, all that was needed was a problem to solve. The solution would just be an afterthought.

    In this case, where the problem is becoming influential and powerful in our government, how can someone have the solution to a problem and not exercise the answer?

    You can't change science and you can't really change the government.

    Stop doing science.
  • Personally, I'm fed up. I'm going to get into the fray and fight for what's right. (Which, in my case, is center-left libertarian independent, or about -4, -4 on politicalcompass.org.)

    I'm not sure I'm up to the task of getting elected, but I mean to try. I don't have a campaign fund set up, and I haven't even figured out what office I'm going to shoot for. (Congress is right out at this stage.) I might have a shot at the state legislature, but I doubt it. I mean to pick the most interesting office that aff
  • Think like this "I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions." is what is wrong with DC now.

    No one is willing to admit what they do not know.

  • Of course Slashdotters will think geeks would make great political leaders. Plato thought "philosopher-kings" would be the ideal rulers. Nobles thought the aristocracy had a "divine right" to rule others. Throughout history, there have been rich people advocating plutocracy, priests who liked theocracy, generals using coups to establish martial law, and so on. In the end everyone thinks that their own social class is uniquely qualified to run things, because that's the perspective they're used to lookin

  • I think the moon would be a good place to bury it. They said they were having a problem with moisture and I am pretty sure that there isn't that much on the moon. And in 10000 years it will be out of reach unless the ability to go there is rediscovered so they would be able to detect it and take caution.

Slashdot Top Deals

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Close