this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Wikipedia

1533 readers
13 users here now

A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.

Rules:

Recommended:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (4 children)

These are a waste of money.

Dig a deep hole into the bedrock, put waste into the hole, backfill with clay and boulders.

Any civilization advanced enough to dig deep enough will quickly understand that the material is dangerous.

And if for some reason a primitive civilization does manage to get at the material they will notice that the material is harmful and avoid it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Over ten thousand years, erosion or earthquakes can expose the entrance, contaminating the site. People could dig a well or prospect for minerals. The suggestion of underground activity could suggest to them that it is a good place to mine, or even that there's a tomb or other interesting artifacts

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

If enough erosion or earthquakes occured to expose the entrance, I don't think a sign would fare too well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Eh, that is is putting way more importance on coincidences than is actually warranted. But lets not loose sight of the general idea.

We need to deal with this waste, on that we are all agreed, we have limited resources to do so.

This means that we need to prioritize the actual waste containment rather than building some weird scarecrow to scare people away who may not even use the same concepts let alone language as we do.

It is ridiculous.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

For me, it shows a compassion for the people of the future, which is inspiring in a way. Similar to the Voyager golden records, which are unlikely to ever be found by anyone, it is partially an exercise in understanding ourselves.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's what the last respondent under the "cultural research" section said and I too want to know why the only sane respondent was listed last.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

Being listed last isn't bad.

It has been found that humans mostly remember that which was said first and last in a long presentation.

As for why it was listed last, I can think of a few reasons, the most logical is that you normally write an article in this sort of order:

Title

Summary

Description

Critics

Conclusion

And it is a fair way of doing it, first presenting the subject and and then critiquing it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

How would they understand it's dangerous, harmful, and avoid it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

People getting sick?

Seems pretty simple to me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Any civilization advanced enough to dig deep enough will quickly understand that the material is dangerous.

Well look, there's only really one civilisation we can look at to see if this is true, and that's our current civilisation. It turns out, though, that this civilisation learned to dig through clay and boulders to any depth a few centuries before it understood what radioactive nuclei do to the human body. It's fair to say a new civilisation would probably learn quickly why all of the people mining near the glowing rocks were dying in pain, but progress in that area would probably be measurable in agonising deaths, which is presumably what people are happy to spend money on these signs to avoid.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Having the same sample of one civilization, it has never been particularly deterred by threats of evil and curses on those who enter. If anything, that only increases its curiosity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

"The form of the danger is an emanation of energy. "

Energy ... Can we mine that?