data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fccd1/fccd117fc491c2630cb87fac4abcef24e2bfb6e6" alt="Science Science"
Building a Plutonium Memorial 205
edsonw writes: "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is giving $3,000 in prizes in a contest which will select the better ideas about how to
handling and storing plutonium.. In their words, "We're inviting artists, architects, and general visionaries to submit their artistic work for what we're calling the "Plutonium Memorial," a facility that would house the world's unwanted weapon plutonium. We see the memorial, were it actually ever to be built, as a grand and visible emblem reminding the world that short-sighted paths to power can lead to a big pile of problems"."
Re:Ummm.... (Score:1)
The critical mass of Plutonium is a bit less than 250g. So, if you put all 8 tonnes of highly dense weapons-grade Plutonium together, you are going to get a bang.
Re:Ummm.... (Score:2)
oh okay... (Score:1)
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
Re:Yeah, that enduring stupidity saved the world (Score:1)
Perhaps, but (a) I don't consider Slashdot claims authoritative, and (b) has anyone claimed the Americans had any reason to know this? In February of '45, all 22,000 defenders of Iwo Jima fought to the death, killing 6,000+ Americans in the process. In April, 16,000 Americans died at Okinawa, facing 1,400+ kamikaze planes, and 120,000 or more Japanese soldiers, 90% of whom died. It was not longer after the battle that Truman gave the go-ahead to drop the bomb, armed with pretty solid evidence that the Japanese were prepared to fight to the death.
Re:Not a bad idea (Score:4)
Oh come on now. Don't be silly. Civilizations are destroyed by invading barbarians. Don't you remember your history lessons? Unless the Canadians suddenly start dressing in furry animal skins and fashioning weapons and spearheads out of dead moose carcasses I'm not going to worry that the United States is going to go away anytime soon. At worst everyone in the world will nuke each other and we'll live in some weird ass post-apocalyptic world like something out of "Waterworld" or "The Postman". Kevin Costner is such a visionary.
how about no memorial (Score:2)
Re:My design (oops) (Score:2)
-l
Re:What? Waste all that good plutonium? (Score:1)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
This has been done already - by experts (Score:1)
And done well:
http://www.halcyon.com/blackbox/hw/wipp/wipp.html [halcyon.com]
Unwanted? (Score:1)
Just wait until they find out that we dug up all the radioactive materials, purified them, and then reburied them in unreachable places so our ancestors can't have nuclear energy either. How can anybody explain that?
"The best you can hope for is to be buried in secret so your grave won't be desecrated".
Re:The place better be REALLY secure (Score:2)
--
Here is an idea... (Score:1)
It all comes from the ground in some form, but it has been concentrated to the point where it is lethal. So, after it has been used (and calmed down a bit) turn the stuff back into dust and spread it around the earth in small enough doses that it is undetectable next to normal natural radioactive ore.
I am sure there is a problem since nobody disposes of waste this way. I can imagine the ignorant outcry of the masses: "Not in my backyard!".
Oh well.
Re:Plutonium's not dangerous. (Score:1)
Breathing in Plutonium dust is also a very bad idea - and where you handle Pu there's probably going to be some dust (2mg breathed in will kill you through cancer).
And after Pu emits alpha radiation it's gone, but what with the stuff that pops up instead? That's surely not stable already and will probably generate more dangerous radiation.
A very very big mushroom.. (Score:4)
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:2)
People always miss the obvious solution.
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:2)
And, it's kinda the whole point that the containers get melted in the interior of the planet
Re:Building Lifetime (Score:1)
If you want people to leave something alone, make it an uninteresting shape, bury it way underground in a highly inhospitable place, etc.
Plutonium's not dangerous. (Score:2)
Re:Speaking of which.... (Score:1)
i.e. mix it with enough benign matter (glass sounds good to me) so it becomes just a big blob of not-very-harmful-stuff.
--
Delphis
Re:Speaking of which....glass is wierd (Score:1)
--
Delphis
Re:Coal Waste Memorial (Score:1)
Giant skull (Score:2)
That will scare people away.
If you make something big, like the large pyramids,
they'll attract people.
Error. (Score:1)
What about recycling it? MOX Fuel? (Score:1)
a big sign that reads: (Score:1)
Re:Playing devil's advocate... (Score:5)
Re:Yeah, that enduring stupidity saved the world (Score:2)
IIRC - the concern was that the detonation of the first atomic bomb would cause a chain reaction of nitrogen fusion, resulting in an atmosphere composed of silicon and oxygen, which would react to form silicon dioxide. They estimated that there was only a 10% chance that they would convert the atmosphere to sand.
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:2)
There's only one way to do this: kill people. The goal of placing a message on this pile of plutonium that will be universally understood for tens of thousands of years is ludicrous. However, the plutonium itself is a pretty robust messenger. Whatever else you do, store the plutonium in such a way that whoever discovers it will die.
Some will no doubt think this is too cold-hearted; I would ask if they intend to avoid unnecessary deaths by eliminating all pathogens and large predators so that our descendants won't be threatened by them? Perhaps level every cliff on the planet so that no one will fall off? Drain the seas so no one will drown? Place warning signs saying "DO NOT LIVE HERE" near all coasts susceptible to hurricanes, in all plains subject to tornadoes, and along every fault line that generates earthquakes and volcanoes?
We've created a force of nature. We can't hope to warn everyone of its danger EXCEPT by allowing peoples and cultures who come into contact with it to experience the danger.
Play a game of half-life (Score:1)
Then again, a more expensive (but definately cooler) idea would be to store it all in a big tunnel in redmond, washington. Maybe it'll mutate the clarity gene and M$ might stop being so crappy
Just pile it all up.... (Score:2)
Well, at least, it won't be plutonium anymore.
Re:Plutonium's Dangers (Score:2)
Not so. That's a science legend (a la urban legend) that is so repeated it has found its way into high school textbooks. Do a search, or go to a higher level source (like a professor in materials science), and you'll find the truth.
The historical basis of this legend is amusing as well... it has to do with a mistranslation of a german text on the subject. Apparantly (and I am not a materials scientist myself), since glass does not crystalize, it's in a small category of materials called something like "amorphous". The german word was mistranslated, and the resulting text seemed like it was saying that glass is a super cooled liquid. Similar to the Mars "canals" error.
The "old glass windows are thin on top and thicker on the bottom" is semi-true: about one-quarter of the time. The old process for making glass turned out panes with a slight wedge shape to them. When taken out (as most have), you can only see that they are thicker at one end, and thinner on the other. In fact, that thick end could have been facing to either side or to the top. I have also *seen* verification of that fact from historical reenactors who make glass using techniques from centuries past.
Now, of course, just like many people have said here: *all* material slowly alters. I believe it was Discover magazine that published the actual model of how long it would take glass (at room temperature) to "flow". It came out to millions or billions of years for a small change. But then, that's true of steel and other "solids".
Do a search on the subject on Google.
--
Evan
Plutonium does not need to be stored forever... (Score:1)
It only needs to be stored until we invent a way to make it safe. (Perhaps we'll invent cheap ways to manipulate things at a subatomic level?)
At the current rate of technological improvement, I doubt that will be more than 200 years before we figure something out.
Of course, I just pulled that "200 years" figure from my ass, but the point is, stop hugging trees and trying to hide/bury the problem (which seems nearly impossible) and start figuring out a way to fix the problem.
-TomK
Re:Plutonium's not dangerous. (Score:1)
But you should probably stay away from LAN-parties. When too many of those cards get together....
Random number generator (Score:5)
Preferably located deep in some desert, though.
Re:What? Waste all that good plutonium? (Score:1)
Just put it back (Score:2)
Re:Building Lifetime (Score:3)
Well, I'm no psychologist, but I can't imagine anything of the sort working. Look at how we dug into pyramids, despite them having the best barricades they could think up just a short few thousand years ago.
But furthermore, you're implying that people 10,000 years from now won't be able to detect radiation before it's too late. I would imagine that 10,000 years from now, detecting radiation won't be any more difficult than it is today. "Gee, I'm losing my hair. Hmmm." Hahaha.
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:1)
However, in 600-1000 years nuclear waste decays to the same radiation level as uranium ore. Just have to keep the stuff 1000 years and then bury it again.
Rob
Other Links (Score:3)
Shaped Like A Pebble Bed Plutonium Burner (Score:3)
A pebble bed plutonium burner [nacsis.ac.jp] is safer and can burn several fuels, including plutonium.
What? Waste all that good plutonium? (Score:3)
There's these things called "Fast Breeder Reactors". They have them in Canada. They convert Plutonium into less radioactive byproducts which are safer. They generate power.
Jeeeeez... it's like saying "Let's put all of the world's oil in a big vat in the middle of the Atlantic...".
Simon
Re:How about a nuclear reactor? (Score:2)
So, sure, power plants can burn plutonium. There are, no doubt, some engineering details, but it obviously can be done because it is being done, every day, in every nuclear power plant on the planet.
That's the appropriate way to dispose of unwanted plutonium, I say, as I sit here in California waiting for another rolling blackout.
Re:Just put it back (Score:2)
Re:Just put it back (Score:2)
Re:Coal Waste Memorial (Score:2)
Amen.
And for all you enviroweenies talking about how we need Kyoto, and how horrible the US is for burning fossil fuels:
From a site on the weird chemistry going on around the Centralia Coal Fire [offroaders.com], which has only burned a town in PA, something for comparison:
Now, could someone explain to me again why nuclear power is bad? Sheesh.
Re:Building Lifetime (Score:3)
>
> Well, I'm no psychologist, but I can't imagine anything of the sort working.
Agreed. The last thing you want is a "grand and visible emblem".
My solutions, in order of preference:
1) Use it in breeder reactors. Turn it into something less dangerous (shorter half-life) and get some energy out of it. Sticking this much energy in a hole in the ground is a waste.
2) Stick it (if you must waste it!) in a hole in the ground with the rest of the waste. Call the place Yucca Mountain. Guard the hell out of it while our civilization lasts, but place no big-ass warning signs designed to attract curiosity-seekers for the next 10,000 years.
If our descendants in the year 12,001 have at least our level of technology, they'll know it's bad juju by the time they get anywhere near it. (And they'll probably wonder why the hell we buried all this useful Pu-239 instead of using it to power our cities!!)
If our descendants have stone-age technology, they won't be able to dig through a mile of rock salt. No warning needed.
If our descendants have 19th-century technology, no matter how intimidating the warning, they'll dig their way in, the same way we dug our way into the Pyramids. "Look, the ancient Americans placed big ugly spikes and pictures of dying people all over this site to warn us off. Silly primitives."
(Or in the words of Zaphod Beeblebrox, "Great! We really must be onto something if they're trying to kill us!")
No warnings, no memorials, nothing that could interest a passer-by, be he a civilian or an archaeologist.
Better idea: A memorial (in the traditional sense) to those who died to bring us this technology. Your contributions will not be forgotten.
Re:Speaking of which.... (Score:2)
No matter what material you use, whether it's glass, ceramic, steel, marble, or something else, some culture that comes after ours, will see the amazing mass of $seminaturalresource and decide that they can sell it for a profit, whether they can tell what's inside or not.
The pyramids have been "investigated" by museums, but plenty of gravesites and momuments were pillaged by thieves long before that.
Re:The place better be REALLY secure (Score:2)
Recycling (Score:2)
Better idea for handling and storing plutonium? Recycle it back into forms reusable for nuclear fuel. The main concern which has stopped anyone from recycling nuclear waste back into fuel is the fear that terrorists are going to steal the material. Either A) you have an artistic, monumental waste of plutonium just sitting there requiring massive security or B) you build a reprocessing plant that has the ability to get rid of most of our nuclear waste problem (you're welcome, Nevada) while requiring massive security. Personally, with all of the security problems over in Russia, I doubt knocking off a well-secured reprocessing plant would be half as attractive an option as paying a few bribes to underpaid Russian technicians.
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:2)
Also, subduction zones are hot (think magma), right? so the toxic containers might melt also.
Stefan
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:2)
offtopic but related (Score:3)
Interesting one of my friends found FOIA information about weapons grade Uranium that was missing, stolen, eaten, disappearing, $INSERT_FAVORITE_TERM_HERE, throughout the 1940's - 1980's. Along with those disappearances, many people were killed, and it was alleged that a) enough was gone for 30 potent weapons, b) some had gotten into the water supply for experimentation, etc.
Anyways for those who're interested check out MKUraniumcide [antioffline.com]
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:2)
________________________
Re:Coal Waste Memorial (Score:2)
Coal Waste Memorial (Score:5)
The Doomsday Clock (Score:2)
I was thinking that if all the weapons plutonium were gathered it would be appropriate to create a clock set back to a minute after twelve o'clock to symbolize the beginning of a new era of hope.
Maybe it would be nice to have something like that some day.
But I think considering the important comment about the Warning Function, this clock should be set to the time the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has set the Doomsday Clock when the center is built. The front cover of the current Bulletin says, "PLUTONIUM - WHO WANTS IT ?" Consider the symbol used for dangerous biological components, it is a much scarier looking version of the trefoil used for atomic energy. I would put the two hands of the doomsday clock, with a great brilliantly glowing crystal at the twelve o'clock digits mark above, at the entrance to this facility. From far away one would see only this brilliant light suspended in the air, and on approach one would see the dark clock hands, supported from a point on the ground that would be the center of the clock. One hand, the hour hand, rises vertically from that point and supports this crystal beacon. Branching off from the main clock hand pillar is the minute hand, set perhaps to nine minutes to midnight as the current clock reads.
Warning? Perhaps the light would warn off a plane coming in for a crash landing.. but more importantly, warn future generations about how close we came, why we sequestered plutonium, about the seduction of energy, and the hidden threat that anybody with Plutonium power can go nuclear in a short amount of time. Like Japan, which is a classic example of irresponsible leadership and a committment to the plutonium breeding cycle.
Perhaps heads of state could be required to visit this vault and shrine before taking their oaths of national security so that they personally understand the responsibility they have for forging and maintaining peace. Someone who "wants" Plutonium should have to walk through that door first.
I am not anti-energy. I am anti-horror. If we could link this sort of thing to the net and hyper-equipped locations around the world it would be nice. But we need a commanding icon which will send a message to everyone who sees it in person or in facsimile. Like the Doomsday Clock, or the rays of the nuclear half-life ticking away the centuries, the millenia.
I'm thinking this might be a good submission.
with a half life of 10,000 (?) years ... (Score:2)
... a lot can change.
The Egyptian dynasties were around a mere 3000 years ago, our earliest examples of writing less than 6000 years ago. We can't decipher those early writings. And how many of their relics still exist? where now are the cities of Akkad, Ur, Uruk?
Now add 4000 more years and work out what will be left. How many buildings or artifacts last this long? What will climatic changes and geological changes will happen to any location on the planet?
It's a great and worthy problem of our own making for people to solve. I heard the US military were looking at this problem a few years ago and came up with a symbolic language to mark out high level radiation dumps. Can anybody give me a reference to this?
It's also worth checking out the Long Now Foundation [longnow.com] for their work on a 10,000 year clock [longnow.com] and The Rosetta Project [rosettaproject.org] looking to create written artifiacts that will physically survive and be decipherable in a time period twice as long as the history of the written word so far...
What ever the solution we owe it to our future generations to sort it out. I wonder though if we're so fixed on short term plans and desires that we won't be able to dedicate the energy to making it happen. Sixty years after the nuclear age began and we're already finding that our leaders attitude towards nuclear waste is just to dump it out of sight and mind [bellona.no].
Here's an idea... (Score:2)
How bout we take all our plutonium and dump it right in Saddam's backyard in Iraq, right when Saddam's there holding a barbeque or something? That way, we get rid of the plutonium that we don't need, and Saddam gets all the plutonium he wants! Course, he may not survive and be able to use it, but it's a win-win situation!
But if a "memorial" is what they want, I'd say just dump it all on the White House lawn and put a sign there saying, "We be fucked." I'd say it's a fitting tribute to all the money we spent on developing the stuff during the Cold War.
How about a nuclear reactor? (Score:2)
CANDU [www.aecl.ca] reactors can safely burn fuel consisting of mixed uranium and plutonium [www.aecl.ca]. If all the CANDU reactors around the world were fed the appropriate mixture, the entire 270 ton stockpile of plutonium could safely be disposed of within a couple years.
Re:What? Waste all that good plutonium? (Score:2)
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
My design (Score:3)
It could be lined with the plutonium, as well as other unpleasant stuff, like, um, a bunch of NT servers for example.
Say, wait a minute, I know just the place we can use....
hypocritical? (Score:2)
Re:My idea.. (Score:2)
Re:Water provides good shielding (Score:2)
Ummm.... (Score:2)
Re: Plutonium memorial (Score:2)
Well, let's see. Weapons-grade plutonium contains a high concentration (90% or more) of plutonium-239. Pu-239 has a half-life of around 24000 years. Plutonium is nasty stuff - even its least radioactive isotope, Pu-242, causes tumours, mainly due to plutonium's long-lived, alpha-emitting characteristics.
The best memorial for this stuff would be a large, impregnable safe so that its contents could not fall into the "wrong hands". On the safe would be a large display indicating in how many years it would be safe to open it, allowing for the natural decay of the plutonium contents. A cat and vial of poison are optional...
A factsheet on plutonium [nrc.gov]
Obvious (Score:2)
Shrike Palace (Score:2)
Scientific 'Merican (or was it The Sciences - NYAS) had a piece about this problem about.. geeps 7 to 10 years ago. The Shrike Palace would be a good model. The real problem is longevity. How do you build something that will last at least as long as the half-life of the material (10K years?). You also must be able to communicate that the contents are dangerous. Sounds easy enough, but how many people can read languages more than 2000 years old now? It should at least have an MS Bob interface.
Now was that really a MS bash?
Re:The place better be REALLY secure (Score:2)
How do you know security through obscurity doesn't work? You hear about the times when it doesn't, but since the times that it works you don't hear about it. It might actually have a really high success rate, but since we only hear of the few failures and none of the successes we can't judge it's effectiveness.
--
America.... (Score:2)
Some would argue that means barbarians will be responsible for America's downfall - my only worry is that you guys might take the rest of us with you.
8)
Seriously, though far be it from me to suggest a
8)
I object... (Score:2)
"Slightly Used" is more fitting.
"Cheap" [to the buyer, not the taxpayer] should also be mentioned.
8)
Glass (Score:2)
You can make the glass pellets small enough that they will spread out evenly over a large area.
It is that, or launch it into the sun, but we do not want a challenger type disaster when launching nuclear waste.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:2)
Consider further that the oldest known human structures are about 5000 years old (in central America, IIRC.)
No, the world's oldest structure is off the coast of Japan [virtualave.net].
No, it's a on Malta [walkabouttravelgear.com]
I mean Egypt [egyptrevealed.com].
Actually, it's north of Tokyo [bbc.co.uk].
Or, is it a wine jar [upenn.edu]?
They are already doing this with Nuclear Waste (Score:2)
Storing Critical Mass (Score:2)
Virg
Plutonium's Dangers (Score:2)
> use it instead of a hot water bottle. Never need refilling.
Two things: first, with no seriousness at all, it really makes dropping your Thermos a bad thing. "Oops! Oh, no! (crack) BOOM!". Second, and seriously, glass is a liquid, and it's fragile. Since exposing plutonium to the environment is a bad thing, putting it in such a fragile container is asking for trouble. Besides, if you could buy your plutonium bottle at Wal-Mart, you could buy enough of them to get together a noticeable amount of fissile material. I'll warrant that building a bomb with it would be difficult, but crushing the elements and blowing the dust into an air exchange system would make for a useful terrorist tactic as well.
Virg
Re:Just put it back (Score:2)
Swing and a miss, Ace. Would you tell me what good encasing it in glass would do, considering that glass melts at a much lower temperature than rock? I hope you didn't lose any sleep thinking this up.
Virg
Bad Idea (Score:2)
See my post above. Lifting the garbage into orbit costs too much energy to be worth it. And, "as long as nothing goes wrong" has to be pretty exacting when you're dealing with plutonium.
Virg
It does occur to someone... (Score:2)
Virg
Knowledge Nuggets (Score:2)
Virg
Real Issues (Score:3)
Virg
Re:Coal Waste Memorial (Score:2)
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:2)
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:2)
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
Re:Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:3)
>radiation level as uranium ore.
Er, I don't know where you got your information from, but you are profoundly mistaken.
Different radioactive elements, and different isotopes of those elements, decay at differing rates; they turn into different decay products along the way, too (some of which are actually *more* dangerous than teh stuff they started out as). Most decay through a whole series of elements with different half-lives. This is sort-of related to the way carbon (C-14) dating works.
The number usually quoted in this context, and generally misunderstood, is 'half life'. This is the period of time taken for 50% a given mass of substance X to decay into something else. (remember the decay product can still be dangerous, and sometimes more so.) See also radon gas, which occurs naturally in granite (as found all over the southwest of the UK, in Scotland, and sundry other locations... I believe there is even some in the US!) which causes a statistically significant number of cases of lung cancer.
Of course one can argue "what's the big deal about a few unfortunate deaths from cancer, compared to the greater good of mankind?" - try making that argument to the mother of an 18 year old who just suffered a protracted and painful death from the disease...
Finally, even if it *was* "no more radioactive than uranium ore", it would still be highly dangerous. You might notice that houses tend not to be built over uranium mines. Of course, you're not making the environmentalist nut's error of thinking "it's "natural"! It MUST be safe, if not actually GOOD for us!" Speaking as an environmentalist nut, that attitude's one of several things that really piss me off about my fellow tree-huggers ;)
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
Nuclear tombstone: the warning function (Score:5)
Wherever the stuff is stored, therefore, needs to be signed in such a way as to:
I'm sure this story will be full of posts from the pro-nuclear lobby; I'm somewhat sympathetic to that PoV, with the exception of the hand-waving that goes on with regard to waste disposal (including defunct power stations themselves.) I grew up within 20 miles of the largest concentration of nuclear power in Western Europe (Oldbury, Berkeley, Hinkley Point) - the former stations were built in the mid 60s, had a design life of 21 years, were kept up and running for 30, and are now testbeds for decommmissioning. It's going to take a century *just to get the buildings into a safe state for long term storage* - a huge block of concrete containing the reactor core, sitting right on the edge of an enormous river with the highest tidal range in Europe. Hmmmmm. Was it worth it for 30 years of slightly-more-expensive than coal electricity? Well, hindsight is a wonderful thing... I suggest we learn from it.
Incidentally the UK Govt. just approved the first UK complex of off-shore windfarms [greenpeace.org.uk]. Another interesting experiment - might work, might be a white elephant, no way of telling without trying... but at least we know that cleaning them up afterwards will be nbd.
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
Speaking of which.... (Score:4)
They're talking about a structure which would have to stand intact for 8 half lives of Plutonium. Ummm. Ok. Sure, pyramids have gotten along ok, but they really haven't been around THAT long. Their talking about making a "facility" of some sort that will last a span of time much greater that seperating the creation of agriculture from the present. How long did "Lucy's" hut stand? But this isn't the only exceptionaly tall order.
The containers for plutonium itself are a monstrous feat of engineering, that would stretch our understanding of materials beyond the bleeding edge. Even underground in a steel container you have the effects of fatigue from every tremor they feel. With moisture present in the air no less. Ceramics and glass are no better. In periods such as these the glass will deform, the ceramics will crack, even under their own weight, and scaresly need the help of tremors to do so. Other qualities such as creep aren't easly extrapolated to very long lifetimes. And I'm talking about, in some cases, 50 years to say nothing of 100,000. Then there is the challenge of these containters being bathed in neutrons for many thousands of years, degrading the chosen materials.
While how some people obtained their doctorates is quite the conundrum. I some how doubt that this is actually serious, as in an attempt to actually build something. It seems far more likely that they might just be putting up $3000 to get some media attention for their cause, and spark discussion. That's certainly a worthy goal. Or maybe Ponds and Pal have found a place where that whole cold fusion stigma didn't follow them. The idea that professionals familiar with nuclear materials and their special challanges would consider something like this achievable, is in all honesty, inconceivable. And I do think that word means what I think it means.
Not a bad idea (Score:2)
A structure that people would notice and preserve (or at least not destroy) like the Sphynx, Eifel tower or the Statue of Liberty might help a bit. You also need warnings that can be interpreted by future civilizations and need to assume that your native tongue is a lost language.
Re:What? Waste all that good plutonium? (Score:3)
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
About about the far side? (Score:3)
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
Playing devil's advocate... (Score:2)
The question is, "Who on earth would want a pile of plutonium in their back yard?"
Simon
My idea.. (Score:2)
(Okay, so its a rip off of the Vietnam memorial, but hey.. it has a powerful effect =)
No, but the French DO! (Score:2)
Profile of Nuclear Power in France [ambafrance-us.org]
Little Boy Used Plutonium-239 (Score:2)
a big ass block of concrete (Score:2)
Building Lifetime (Score:2)
Written and spoken language would change drastically over 10,000 years, how would we show the people of the future that this is a BAD building to enter?
Non verbal warnings (spikes, colours, sounds) may be more appropriate for the structure.
Re:Little Boy Used Plutonium-239 (Score:2)
Re:a big ass nuclear reactor (Score:2)
Re:Space Probes (Score:2)
Does is occur to anyone... (Score:2)
There's a good reason most countries don't store all their plutonium in one place.