
A hole in Finland is being prepared to contain radioactive waste for 100k years - rbanffy
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/olkiluoto-island-finland-nuclear-waste-onkalo
======
pmoriarty
This reminds me of the "doomsday" seed vault in neighboring Norway, which _"
was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most
precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity’s food supply
forever."_

It flooded a recently, after only a decade of operation.[1]

[1] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14377988](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14377988)

~~~
markcerqueira
Didn't people who work at the facility say "flooding" was an exaggeration of
what actually went down?

~~~
ajarmst
Yep. It was easily cleaned up and apparently happens every year in the spring.

~~~
_h_o_d_
but wasn't it designed to be self-sustaining without human input for long
stretches of time?

~~~
stouset
Which it continues to be. Nothing near the vault was threatened. The only
thing that flooded was the entrance.

------
Fzzr
Obligatory: This is where the second image in the article ("this is not a
place of honor") comes from. It's also briefly summarized in the last few
paragraphs. Worth a read on its own.

[http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%...](http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%20message%20to%2012,000%20a_d.htm)

~~~
jquery
Suppose we discovered a 10,000 year old archaeological site with that message.
Do you honestly think we would be like, "ok, I guess we won't go digging
around to see what this ancient civilization found repulsive and worthy of
such hatred?" Of course we'd dig around. That's our human nature. We're
curious.

We'd be careful but if there was a "I have no mouth and I cannot scream" sort
of horror lurking beneath we'd suffer the consequences no matter the warning.

~~~
devoply
It makes no sense to put it in 1 language. put any sort of signage in at least
5-10 languages. and also use a linguist to determine the right set of words to
warn of danger. that text is extremely ambiguous. also pictographs are
probably much more universal than anything to do with words.

~~~
tempay
Even then it isn't simple to make pictures: a) last thousands of years b)
unambiguous too all possible cultures that might encounter them.

There is a particularly good episode of 99% invisible (podcast) that talks
about some of the challenges involved.[1]

[1] [http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/ten-thousand-
years/](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/ten-thousand-years/)

------
mlindner
These 100k year plans are beyond absurd. It's based on the flawed hypothesis
that the radiation has to be below detectable levels compared to background
before it's considered "safe", where in reality "safe" is a statistical
property that can be reached in under 1000 years and perhaps even 100 years.

~~~
nl
_It 's based on the flawed hypothesis that the radiation has to be below
detectable levels compared to background before it's considered "safe", where
in reality "safe" is a statistical property that can be reached in under 1000
years and perhaps even 100 years._

What on earth are you talking about?

The most common byproduct of most reactors in use today is Plutonium 239[1].
It has a half-life of 24,000 years. This means it generates extremely high
levels of radiation for thousands of years.

While it is true that low levels of radiation aren't very dangerous, high
doses are. For example, page 15 of [2] discusses studies on workers exposed to
high levels of radiation from Plutonium. There are two studies, which disagree
about the dangers of low level (one shows a linear relation, the other doesn't
show any at low levels). At high levels, both show much higher death rates
than control groups.

That's only Plutonium 239. There are other high level nuclear waste products
which last much longer, but aren't produced in such high amounts.

[1] [http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-
fue...](http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-
cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium.aspx)

[2]
[https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818013.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818013.pdf)

~~~
robin_reala
I’m not disagreeing because it’s been ages since I’ve done any physics, but
surely if an isotope produces extremely high levels of radiation it’s decaying
extremely quickly?

~~~
nl
Yes indeed, you are pretty much correct (although factors such as the type of
radiation also matter).

This 24,000 year half life of Plutonium 239 is much shorter than something
like the 4.5 billion year half-life of Uranium 238. There are things with much
shorter half-lives too, of course.

The danger from radioactive substances comes from many things. In Plutonium
239's case the danger is if any gets within the body. The alpha rays it
generates don't penetrate through a body, but on the other hand if plutonium
particles are ingested or breathed they cause "somewhere between 10 and 1,000
times more chromosomal damage than beta or gamma rays"[1]

This is one of the reasons why the OP is so completely, utterly wrong. Without
proper - very long term - protected disposal of high level nuclear waste it
kills very easily.

[1] [http://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-
ur...](http://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-uranium.html)

~~~
valuearb
Plutonium can be hazardous, but we've been able to work with it very safely.
There is little reason to worry about storing it safely.

"During the Manhattan Project in 1944 and 1945, 26 men accidentally ingested
plutonium in quantities that far exceeded what is now considered to be a
lethal dose. Since there has been a consistent interest in the health effects
of this brand new substance (first discovered by Glenn Seaborg’s team at the
University of California in 1940), these men were closely tracked for medical
studies.

Forty Years Later As of 1987, more than four decades later, only four of the
workers had died and only one death was caused by cancer. The expected number
of deaths in a random sample of men the age of those in the group is 10. The
expected number of deaths from cancer in a similar group is between two and
three."

[https://atomicinsights.com/how-deadly-
plutonium/](https://atomicinsights.com/how-deadly-plutonium/)

Of course that doesn't count the demon core.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core)

------
ericmason
Whenever I see an article about storing nuclear waste for such longer periods
of time, I can't help but think we will find a use for nuclear waste and end
up digging it all back up way before 100,000 years.

~~~
stevep98
And the advances in robotics necessary to handle processing the waste are
probably just a few decades away.

And if we don't develop these machines, our AI augmented successors will.

Ironically, it's just really short-sighted to plan for something that far in
the future.

~~~
rbanffy
The difficulty here is that radiation fries the brains of the robots, not that
they aren't smart enough to work with the stuff. I was a bit shocked the
robots people send to observe Fukushima die in minutes of exposure.

It's not something making smaller and faster transistors can solve.

~~~
skocznymroczny
Have they tried rewriting it in Rust?

------
waibelp
Lets hope they really build concrete walls and did not just dig a hole. That
reminds me of "Atommülllager Gorleben" in Germany where they started to
temporarely put some atomic waste until another/better place is found. That
was 12 years ago and they are still looking for a better place...

In the meantime the involved people fight against water which flows into the
tunnels reaching the containers with the nuclear waste and they try to get
back the waste which is harder as supposed.

------
tibarun
Just the other day: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2017/05/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2017/05/09/tunnel-collapses-at-hanford-nuclear-waste-site-in-
washington-state-reports-say/)

It's pure madness that we keep on producing such hazardous waste! And for what
purpose? Cleaner energy? Nope! If you take into account the waste management
needs, the Uranium mining, the risks involved and the fact that these nuclear
plants have to be highly subsidized in order to keep working. Why are we still
using such an obviously flawed technology?
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170525141544.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170525141544.htm)

~~~
walterstucco
Because it's the only form of energy that right now could send us to Mars

We're not going there with solar or wind energy

~~~
theoh
The worldwide nuclear industry does not exist at the behest of some "let's go
to Mars" lobby...

~~~
walterstucco
Name another source of energy we could use. We need nuclear energy and nuclear
research.

Besides, it is now clear that the real problem for the planet is not nuclear
disasters, but pollution.

Nuclear is greener than many alternatives.

We need to shut down fossil fuel power plants.

That's why electric cars are better than regular cars. That's where green
energy is essential, for reducing pollution and CO2 impact of the average
men's life.

But if we're talking about industry, powering data centers, space era, we need
something more powerful, until we discover something new, the breakthrough
that will start the new industrial revolution for real.

Another consideration is that there are still unsolved problems in producing
energy, wherever you look for a solution.

For example, most of the solar panels active right now are not really "green",
solar panels cover and "burn" a lot of soil, we still don't know the long term
effects, but it is known that solar parks are affecting temperatures and
weather around them.

A recent study[1] concludes that

"A growing body of studies underscores the vast potential of solar energy
development in places that minimize adverse environmental impacts and confer
environmental cobenefits (2, 10, 14, 15, 21). Our study of California reveals
that USSE development is a source of land cover change and, based on its
proximity to protected areas, may exacerbate habitat fragmentation resulting
in direct and indirect ecological consequences. These impacts may include
increased isolation and nonnative species invasions, and compromised movement
potential of species tracking habitat shifts in response to environmental
disturbances, such as climate change. Furthermore, we have shown that USSE
development within California comprises siting decisions that lead to the
alteration of natural ecosystems within and close to protected areas in lieu
of land already impacted by humans "

[1]
[http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13579.full.pdf](http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13579.full.pdf)

------
nonbel
>"Onkalo must last for 100,000 years. A hundred thousand years ago, Europe was
in the middle of the Ice Age."

I think they mean "beginning of the most recent glacial period" rather than
ice age, but anyway I hope this site is better planned out than that seed
vault.[1] They need to plan ahead for 10 C temperature changes and
growing/receding glaciers:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14377988](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14377988)

------
mysterydip
Can someone explain to me radioactive waste? If something is still emitting
radiation and particles, can't it still be used as a weaker energy producer?
Why are we trying to hide it instead?

~~~
fdej
The power output of high level radioactive waste is of the order some watt per
kg, comparable to animal metabolism. This is so little that the energy that
could be extracted would be worth far less than the running costs for
maintenance and security. However, there is the possibility of using breeder
reactors to recycle fuel.

------
Banthum
Question for anyone who knows. In a world where we have mines many kilometers
deep, which do get abandoned from time to time, why is it so hard to get rid
of nuclear waste?

Can't we just pack it at the bottom of an ultra-deep mine, collapse all the
tunnels with explosives, and walk away?

It's not like some future primitive civilization is going to accidentally dig
down through 2km of rock to find it.

~~~
_h_o_d_
Geology. Rocks move over time, especially in areas of high tectonic activity,
but also in others. Water tables exist, and mines were not designed to be
watertight, or airtight, or to contain such dangerous material.

------
adsfqwop
There is a documentary film made about this called "Onkalo - Into Eternity".

It's fascinating to hear the designers rationalize their decisions, and the
problems they think and hope they need to take into account for the future.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUQ-
Mhb4OVo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUQ-Mhb4OVo)

------
DiscoKing
At some point in the future people could dig it up for use as fuel in fast
breeder reactors. Even if renewables such as solar and wind take over fully,
it would be the responsible thing to do for future generations to truly get
rid of the waste completely instead of just hiding it away.

------
SCAQTony
They are going to need a "Rosetta stone" for this grave. For instance, what
language and alphabets will be used or forgotten $10,000 years from now let
alone 100,000 years.

Hieroglyphics was almost a lost alphabet.

~~~
Fzzr
Also posted above:
[http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%...](http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%20message%20to%2012,000%20a_d.htm)

Yes. They're considering everything from pictographs up to the level of
hostile architecture. The proposed message includes instructions to update the
message in the language spoken at the time, in the hope of helping the message
endure for generations more.

~~~
CM30
It's an interesting set of ideas, and the concept of trying to warn future
generations away is certainly a good one.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of these ideas will work quite as well as
people think they do. Okay, they kind of figured that one out in the full
study (they give between a 10-40% probability that a low technology society
will understand the warnings) but still. Just looking at human history,
mythology and media will tell you how well deterring people from a location
through warnings and scary geography has worked out.

The spikes, skeletons and other deterrances are the kind of thing any future
historian (or Indiana Jones style explorer) is going to find extremely
interesting regardless of warnings. Even if they do know about nuclear
radiation.

~~~
cowboysauce
>The spikes, skeletons and other deterrances are the kind of thing any future
historian (or Indiana Jones style explorer) is going to find extremely
interesting regardless of warnings. Even if they do know about nuclear
radiation.

A future archeologist exploring the architecture is of no concern. A future
environmental science team drilling down to study how well our containment
procedures worked is of no concern. If people are aware of what's buried, it's
not a problem.

The goal isn't to keep people out, per se, it's to let them know what's there.
That's what the document proposes. None of the architecture is designed to
physically prevent people from entering the site. It's all designed to tell
people what's there.

------
xupybd
The author speaks of gamma emissions being the primary danger, I thought alpha
particles where the main danger?

~~~
mrob
Alpha particles are the main danger when alpha emitting materials are inhaled
or ingested, but nuclear waste storage facilities are designed to prevent
that. With good containment, gamma emissions are the biggest danger, because
gamma rays are hard to block.

------
agumonkey
the movie onkkalo - into eternity was one of my deepest hard SF experience

~~~
yourapostasy
If you are talking about [1], then others should know that the movie is a
documentary thinly masquerading as a hard SF movie addressing an audience in
the remote future. It's a pretty depressing movie; it is obvious they are
constrained by politically-motivated budgets and making a relatively cursory
effort to bury the waste, considering the goals involved.

I'd rather see these geological waste repositories as endless projects
combined with reprocessing to reduce waste volume at heavily-defended military
bases; continue digging ever downwards, the waste stored at the deepest stable
non-construction zone levels to date, with the materials for basalt-rebar
reinforced concrete plugs along the entire path back to the surface ready to
drop in at a moment's notice, over say 24 hours. If certain existential
triggers are reached endangering the existence of the host nation-state,
evacuate the tunnels and pull the plugs to fill in the tunnels. As the
tunneling surpasses 2.5 km (a little past our current deepest tunnel), our
confidence level in future generations drilling that deep and knowing about
radioactivity dramatically increases.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HArxuzs1AA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HArxuzs1AA)

~~~
anigbrowl
DRop me a line at gmail, if you would. I have perverse reasons for not
following up on another comment of yours.

------
bshimmin
Seriously, Wired, it's "millennia"! "millenia", if it means anything at all,
means something like "a thousand bottoms"...

