Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nuke-Proof Bunker Turns Out Not Waterproof

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the maybe-send-it-to-cuba dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 400

An anonymous reader writes "The AP reports on the opening of a vault in Tulsa, OK which was designed to withstand a nuclear attack by the Russians. 50 years ago they put a Plymouth Belvedere in the vault to preserve it so that we could get a good look at it in the (for that time) magical year of 2007. Unfortunately it turns out that the vault wasn't even waterproof. The once beautiful car is now a literal rust bucket."

cancel ×

400 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But was the in the specs? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19541755)

Now gimme a break. That was not part of the requirement specifications!

Re:But was the in the specs? (5, Funny)

g0dsp33d (849253) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542081)

I was gonna say, my waterproof watch isn't nuke proof either.

On a positive note the Nuke shelters weren't needed or lots of people would have drowned.

From Soviet Russia, they nuke to ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542165)

From Soviet Russia, they nuke to the dam or to water reservoir.

They want acid rains, radioactive climates, warm-up air to kill them, contaminated water, very dry and filtered terrain, etc.

Your air, water and food will be scarce.
You asphyxiate in your bunker.

The right way to write a Russian Reversal (4, Funny)

mk_is_here (912747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542587)

In Soviet Russia, bunkers are waterproof but not nuke-proof.

Duck and Cover (2, Funny)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541765)

Well, at least people can still duck and cover if there's a nuclear attack. Hooray for worthless advice...

Re:Duck and Cover (1)

Yoooder (1038520) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542333)

Survive a nuke, I suppose. But in the time it would take radiation to die down I think the chances of a rain would be pretty good.

Re:Duck and Cover (5, Insightful)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542347)

What's so worthless about duck and cover? In the event you're not close enough to be vaporized or significantly irradiated, why would you want to just stand up and die due to head injury if you have an opportunity to protect yourself? Plus it's useful for natural disasters.

And most importantly of all, it helped traumatize the public, keeping them in the palms of exploitive politicians.

Re:Duck and Cover (2, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542413)

Well, at least people can still duck and cover if there's a nuclear attack. Hooray for worthless advice...
No, not really "worthless." If you're far enough away to not be unavoidably killed (unless you're in a 30' lead bunker), but close enough that you are in danger, duck-and-cover does increase your chance of surviving the initial attack.

And if you are too close--well, it makes finding your remains a bit easier.

How times have changed... (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541771)

I read a story about this time capsule a few weeks ago, and I wanted to make sure I found out how it went. Thanks for posting this story. I love this part: "The contents of a "typical" woman's handbag, including 14 bobby pins, lipstick and a bottle of tranquilizers..." My how times have changed...And to think, some lucky person is gonna win that car and 1200 bucks. I tell you what...

What did they expect ... (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541779)

It could have been worse - it could have been a 197o's Ford, in which case all that would have been left would have been the tires and a lump of iron oxide.

Re:What did they expect ... (5, Funny)

hughk (248126) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541859)

Not funny. I once owned a ford from that era. There would have much more left over - the windshield for example. Ford don't make it and it can't rust.

Vaults? (1)

deftcoder (1090261) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541783)

I always said Fallout had an accurate prediction of how the world would end...

Re:Vaults? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19541827)

Oh, but this Vault was even better than the one in Fallout! Plenty of water! Water for everyone! Oh god, why is everything rusting?!?!

Re:Vaults? (3, Funny)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542301)

You see this is what happens when you get too many water chips. Vault 8, anyone?

Re:Vaults? (1)

Cairnarvon (901868) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542459)

You know Fallout was made some time after 1957, right? I'd guess the Tulsa vault inspired Fallout, and not the other way around.

Hey, they never claimed it was! (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541793)

It was built to shelter people against radiation, not water. And? How did it not work? Did anyone die from radiation in the area?

See how good it works!

Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! (5, Insightful)

iknowcss (937215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541981)

what about the fallout from a nuclear attack? Seeing as so much is soluble in water, that's probably the last thing we want leaking in to a shelter.

Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! (1, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542053)

Again, did anyone feel any ill effects from radiation? So did it serve its purpose or not?

Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! (4, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542387)


It was built to shelter people against radiation, not water.

The article is quite misleading. The "survive a nuclear attack" thing was just a boast about how strong the vault was. It wasn't a fallout shelter, it was a vault designed to hold a car for 50 years. On that level it failed miserably.

It looks to me like whoever designed the vault didn't think about water, or at least had little idea about underground vaults. Looking at this picture:
http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=388 5529&fSectionId=751&fSetId=381 [motoring.co.za]
doesn't make this vault look terribly waterproof.

Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! (4, Interesting)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542483)

It looks to me like whoever designed the vault didn't think about water, or at least had little idea about underground vaults.
One thing I've noticed working as an electrician on exposed enclosures is that if a product is labeled "watertight", all that means is that once water gets in, it never comes out. The Luxor hotel in Las Vegas (the pyramid one) was originally built with in-ground floodlights shining onto each palm tree. These lights were hellaciously expensive because they were supposedly completely waterproof. I was on the crew replacing them with standard above-ground floods, and every single one of those triple-sealed waterproof lights was full of water. Water is insidious and never gives up.

Not goatse proof either (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19541795)

Really! [goatse.cz]

Ok, we get the idea (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19541803)

Some dumb 1950 duck-and-cover types who actually liked Schlitz beer screwed up big time.

But at least they tried. Where are the equivalent time capsules of today? Why doesn't Slashdot offer (for example) a PT Cruiser to whomever correctly guesses the population of Mars in 2050?

Re:Ok, we get the idea (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541845)

My guess: 0

Just remember the last time slashdot had a PT Cruiser contest....

Re:Ok, we get the idea (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541877)

Why doesn't Slashdot offer (for example) a PT Cruiser to whomever correctly guesses the population of Mars in 2050?

Zero plus or minus zero to zero decimal places! Please wrap my PT cruiser in plastic and park it in a salt mine along with weapons, ammunition, lots of gasoline, and a biker's outfit made of rotted leather.

Re:Ok, we get the idea (1)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542261)

This might not have been the effect you were going for, but I think if they make another Mad Max, I want to see some pierced, snarling degenerate road warrior tooling around in one of those faux wood sided PT cruisers. That'd be outstanding.

Re:Ok, we get the idea (-1, Offtopic)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541891)

I think a better question is how many soldiers will the US have in Iraq in 2050.

Re:Ok, we get the idea (-1, Offtopic)

jo7hs2 (884069) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541957)

Congratulations! You managed a comment about the Iraq war, and an comment about George W. Bush (via sig) in a thread with absolutely no connection to either whatsoever. You win nothing but your own self satisfaction. Thanks for cluttering up the internet.

Re:Ok, we get the idea (1, Informative)

jo7hs2 (884069) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541971)

What's more amazing is that you managed it with a quote that has nothing to do with Bush.

Re:Ok, we get the idea (0, Offtopic)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542415)

Congratulations! You managed a comment about the Iraq war, and an comment about George W. Bush (via sig) in a thread with absolutely no connection to either whatsoever. You win nothing but your own self satisfaction. Thanks for cluttering up the internet.

Your defensive reaction is odd. It seems your responding to a bitter satirical jab with self righteous indignation which makes you look more foolish then him. He is trolling his political view and you are trolling yours. Both of you clutter up the internet with off topic vitriol.

Re:Ok, we get the idea (1)

Robber Baron (112304) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542421)

Why doesn't Slashdot offer (for example) a PT Cruiser
Or better yet, how about offering a REAL car instead of a Neon with a body kit?

What indicates it isn't waterproof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19541809)

At Friday's ceremony, protective wrapping was removed to show the mud-caked vintage vehicle covered in rust.

Where did all the mud come from? I think that has much more to do with the rust.

Re:What indicates it isn't waterproof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19541879)

Please, oh please, tell me you're joking.

Re:What indicates it isn't waterproof? (5, Funny)

PorkNutz (730601) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542049)

Where did all the mud come from? I think that has much more to do with the rust.

This little gem is why your boss doesn't pay you to think.

-----
Übergeek Necktie T-Shirt [prostoner.com]
Funny Shirts @ ProStoner.com

Yawn (-1, Troll)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541811)

Yawnnnnnnnn , really slow day, huh?

Re:Yawn (1, Insightful)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541909)

You aren't forced to read it, Timmy.

old cars (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541817)

I can't be the only one that finds classic/vintage cars beautiful. And I can't be the only one who thinks recent car designs are insipid. Yes, they're more reliable, the interiors are nicer, but why does the outside look like automobile equivalent of hospital food? Aerodynamics be damned! Does anybody think a 2007 corvette looks nicer than a 1960s model? Or a 2007 mustang looks nicer than a 1960s model? (And just look at it before the last redesign).

Agree? Disagree?

Re:old cars (1)

jo7hs2 (884069) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541919)

Eh, the current 2005-2007 Mustangs look pretty darn close to the originals. Not sure if I like the current model more, but I do like it. And I do think that the 1989-1997 and 2002-2005 Thunderbirds (sans-hardtop) were nicer looking than the original, but only because I prefer a sleeker, cleaner rear end on a car. I know some people love them, but portholes and fins just don't do it for me. As for the Corvette, that is one that I will agree looked better initially than it ever has.

Re:old cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542047)

I disagree. I like the look of new cars in general. The old ones look hmm old. Kind of clunky or something. But I know a lot of people love em which is fine by me. Kind of sad I don't have a flying car operating on a clean renewable energy source by now that can travel several times the speed of light...

Re:old cars (2, Interesting)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542091)

I can't be the only one that finds classic/vintage cars beautiful. And I can't be the only one who thinks recent car designs are insipid.
Call me sacrilegious, but I was never (and still amn't) a big fan of 50s "Americana" style cars. Tail fins- overdecorative and contrived space-age kitsch. Too much chrome. Too reliant on their association with "rock-n'-roll and diners" nostalgia for their appeal.

Even though it was only 25 to 30 years old when I was growing up in the 80s, that whole 50s/early-60s style looked ancient and as cheesy as hell.

You're free to disagree with that, but it kind of annoys me that everyone is assumed to love that sort of stuff. Personally, I don't.

And for what it's worth I never really "got" Elvis Presley either. :-/

Re:old cars (1)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542457)

You must've born in America :) Seriously, speaking as not native, old american cars are often (used to) symbolize what America used to be to the rest of the world.
Not anymore, unfortunately...

When you were growing up in the '80s (1)

Foerstner (931398) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542549)

I have a theory that your taste in automotive styling is set by what's around you when you're growing up.

I, like the parent poster, grew up in the '80s. Like the parent poster, I think that the styling trends of the '50s are hideous, garish, and sometimes even spooky. I can appreciate them from a perspective of nostalgia, but I think it's just hideous out of that context. I'd much rather drive a '90s jellybean or an '80s box, if it came down to that.

If I look back and draw the line, I think I'd draw it about the time my parents' cars were made. I think that's how people recognize what's acceptable to them, and what's not.

Re:old cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542117)

Does anybody think a 2007 corvette looks nicer than a 1960s model? Or a 2007 mustang looks nicer than a 1960s model?

Yes. I do. I can't think of a single 2007 model year vehicle that does not look better than its 1960s version.

I'd agree with you on most 1990s cars, but the new ones look nice. A 1993 Mustang, Corvette, Camaro etc. looks like crap compared to the model from 25 years earlier.

Re:old cars (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542289)

The nicest vette ever ... 67 Sting Ray. The bomb.

Re:old cars (1)

Usquebaugh (230216) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542163)

Please, please do not hold up US car design as being any good.

I can think of two models that were world class '32 Ford and '57 Chevy. that's it. Both of these were understated and then in subsequent revisions ruined by the US attitude of more is better.

Take a look at European design if you want some class, even the small cars of recent years have very good design.

Re:old cars (3, Interesting)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542219)

I'll stick up for the recent cars.

Especially in the '50s and '60s, design was only about form; huge sacrifices in function were made to have those pretty shapes. For me, a simple and functional design is much more honest and appealing. When I see '50s and '60s cars, I just see an enormous waste of space and weight, that doesn't contribute to performance, comfort, safety, economy, or any other part of the function of a car. I have the same reaction to those cars that I have to PC cases with fins and lights on them.

For me, some of the best designs ever are on very ordinary cars; they are those that allowed unusual innovations in function. The '86-'89 Honda Accord; the original Chrysler minivans; the current Prius (not for anything having to do with its propulsion, but for its packaging); the Volvo 145 wagon and its numerous descendants (through to the 740 and 960/V90 wagons); the first Scion xB, and, for an example from the '50s, the Mini.

And even from a purely aesthetic perspective, I find simpler better. Some of the prettiest cars for me are the '93 Mazda MX-6; the '92 Acura Legend; the current Audi A6 and A8 (especially the S8); both the original Infiniti G35 and new G37 coupes; and of course the 2000-era Volkswagens (the previous generation of Golfs, Jettas, and Passats). I'll be in the market for a new car in about a year and a half; if nothing changes, I'll probably buy a G37.

Re:old cars (0, Flamebait)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542283)

I can't be the only one that finds classic/vintage cars beautiful. And I can't be the only one who thinks recent car designs are insipid. Yes, they're more reliable, the interiors are nicer, but why does the outside look like automobile equivalent of hospital food? Aerodynamics be damned! Does anybody think a 2007 corvette looks nicer than a 1960s model? Or a 2007 mustang looks nicer than a 1960s model? (And just look at it before the last redesign).

Agree? Disagree?


Compare a 1963 corvette to a 2005 NSX and yes the NSX looks better. A 1963 mustang to a 2007 s2000 and you'll find the s2000 is subjectively better looking. You comparing models that have come down dramatically in the grand scheme of things.

Where I come from the corvette and the mustangs are cars for the old and the poor driving beyond their means. In my particular driving circle of various ethnicity and social class there is a persistent stigma that they are either old mens cars (mustang) or white trash cars (corvette).

Re:old cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542393)

Driving circle? Is that like a circle jerk or something? :-)
Personally I think a lot of people worry too much about the kind of car they're driving and what others think of their status. I guess in some cases you need a nice car if you're a salesman or something that like, but otherwise the status thing is entirely ego-based, and thus a waste of time and energy.

Re:old cars (4, Insightful)

freeweed (309734) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542365)

Wait wait wait... a rant about liking older cars is now insightful?

Dude - you're not the only one. In fact, there are millions like you around the world. There are car collector clubs, shows, magazines, books, damn near entire TOWNS dedicated to the preservation and appreciation of older cars. Some of these cars sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars (even millions) depending on rarity and condition. You can't seriously be unaware of this. It's one of the most common hobbies out there. Shit, in ANY North American city at this time of year, you're bound to see one drive by every few minutes if you open your eyes.

Are we here at Slashdot actually this unaware of what goes on in the "real world", that not only can someone ask this with a straight face, but it's "Insightful"?

Re:old cars (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542569)

Nah, it's just that some people wanted to say the same stuff/ask the same question/see the answer to it.

Re:old cars (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542373)

I've never really cared for any general production cars prior to about to the mid 80's. I like some of the Ferraris and other exotics of previous eras. But even the Corvettes and muscle cars didn't impress me much.
Not that there is much to choose from these days. I'm not really salivating over any production cars these days. Nothing is exciting to me. The last production car I liked was the Lexus SC400. The SC430 is just ugly in comparison, and the Lexus Sedans headlights are a total turnoff.
I liked the Toyota Supra and had both a 1990 and a 1998 model. But they don't make those anymore. I had an RX-7 convertible, but the new RX-8 doesn't look as sharp.
I have an 1988 Lotus Esprit, and they have stopped making them as well, and the Exige and Elise don't really do it for me. They actually handle better, and are peppier, but they don't have the same sexy shape.
I looked at new model BMWs, and the amenities are nice, but the inside looks like they are taking cues from Detroit. Gauges and GPS sunk deep into the dash, under an overhang where a tall person would never be able to see them or manipulate the controls. Some hideous looking fin, which I assume houses the GPS antenna. Of course GPS antennas are so small that the only purpose of that fin must be so that people know you have a GPS. I'm almost thinking my next car might be an Audi because at least they still have some European charm.

Re:old cars (1)

PorkNutz (730601) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542375)

Some modern cars are just as beautiful as their classic counterparts. The Corvette in your example for instance. The '63 Corvette is such a beautiful car. I have never driven one, but the form is breathtaking. The '07 'Vette is the same way. They're both very powerful and sensual designs. The mid/late '70s are butt ugly though.

-----
Jon Stewart for President T-Shirt [prostoner.com]
Funny Shirts @ ProStoner.com

Re:old cars (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542403)

I do. I personally think the older auto designs look atrocious. I just took a quick look on wikipedia for pictures, and the 2003 corvette looks light-years better than the 60s models, or even the 58 model. Same for the 2006 models they have pictured. I won't compare a 2007 mustang to older models, because I don't like the new design at all, but the early 2000s mustangs they have pictures of on wikipedia look, again, much much better than their older counterparts.

This doesn't invalidate your opinion at all, but I hope you don't seriously think that it's impossible to like newer designs over older ones. Beauty has been shown time and time again to be a highly subjective thing, for cars as much as for anything else (hell, I'm sure there's someone out there who will insist that the Model T is the very definition of elegance and grace).

So all in all, I'd go with the "disagree" option you presented. :)

Boxster, Smart, New Beetle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542433)

The Porsche Boxster, the New Beetle from Volkswagen, the Smart, those Kia's, I could go on and on... Oh wait, those aren't American cars? Sorry I interrupted - please continue. Have fun bashing "modern design".

Strongly disagree (1)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542509)

It could be just because I'm "young" but I owned 2 previous model Mustangs and think they were the most beautiful out of all of them (leaving alone the fact that, ignoring that it made less HP than foreign V8's, it had much more power than the old 'classic' models). In fact, the model before that, the almost universally panned 'bubble' model, was my first car that I bought. In any case, I loved them all. I think they're great, simple cars. They're not supposed to the greatest thing ever, they're just supposed to look good and spin the rear wheels, both I think they do in spades compared to the originals.

And also, yes, I think the partially Ferrari inspired remodelling of the current Corvette looks brilliant even though I'm no GM fan.

Similar screw-up... (5, Interesting)

Oswald (235719) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541821)

When the air traffic control centers in the U.S. were constructed (late '50s, early 60's), it was decided that the buildings needed to be able to resist the effects of nuclear fallout. They were equipped with giant vertical steel louvers all around the perimeter and a washdown feature for the roof. But the roofs never so much as held out the rain, let alone the radioactive soup that trying to wash away fallout would have created. I've worked at Atlanta Center for about 23 years, and I think they just re-roofed for the fourth time. Within two years, it will probably leak again.

BTW, the Cold War systems were decommissioned about a decade ago. In the early 1990's the louvers needed painting, so they were removed from building, shipped to someplace (rumor said Texas), painted and then reinstalled. A couple of years later they were removed for good.

rust (1)

UnNamedLINUX (637576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541829)

I feel sorry for all the EURO's that came all that way to see rust

Free Water (1)

x78 (1099371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541887)

well at least nobody would need to leave to get water.. not that water would be top priority if a nuke hit though.. maybe

Blue Ray.... err, Peter (2, Interesting)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541897)

The British kids' TV show, Blue Peter [wikipedia.org] had the same thing happen with one of the "time capsules" they buried on TV. When they dug it up again with great ceremony 16 years later, water had got in and it was a soggy mess [offthetelly.co.uk] .

Not sure what the point of it was anyway; 16 years isn't that long unless you're like 6 years old when it's being dug up- seems pretty contrived and pointless to me.

Re:Blue Ray.... err, Peter (2, Interesting)

mikael (484) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542103)

That really sucks - moisture is a real danger when trying to preserve anything. Wasn't the time capsule buried in the Blue Peter gardens or something similar?

Our primary school were involved in a time-capsule project in the late 1970's. The capsule was built into the foundations of a brand new concrete council office block which was expected to last over 50 years. Thirty years later they are planning to demolish the "eyesore building" due to condensation problems with the concrete.

Re:Blue Ray.... err, Peter (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542295)

Unless you're like 6 years old when it's being dug up - it's BLUE PETER, a children's programme! For small kids! So it's likely the ones watching it being dug up weren't even born when it was put in.

Cunning bastards (5, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541915)

Make us think they are going to nuke us and then launch a surprise attack with water pistols.

Gamma particles (2, Insightful)

narced (1078877) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541941)

I'm waiting for a nuclear engineer to show up and tell us how water can get in, but gamma particles can not. This is not a jab at nuclear engineers, I'm truly interested.

Re:Gamma particles (2, Informative)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541995)

Water is good at turning corners.

rj

Re:Gamma particles (1)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542181)

Wouldn't the water be radioactive from the bomb fallout?

Re:Gamma particles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542005)

It's gamma rays, not gamma particles. You call them photons if you are considered them as particles.

Re:Gamma particles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542041)

Due to the same reason that natural caves are dark and damp -- light travels in straight line and water doesn't have to.

Re:Gamma particles (2, Informative)

Nukee (1054960) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542321)

If concrete acts anything like rock, the movement most fission products or decay products will be greatly slowed down by the concrete, so it would be very possible to have water coming thorough but little radiation. Some elements aren't really affected though, iodine, for example, will move at the same speed as the ground water, not slowed at all. It depends a lot of the porosity of the rock however, and I'm not sure how concrete measures up.

As for gamma rays, since they are simply high energy photons, a lot of concrete can be a pretty effective shield. At least, as long as your sources stay outside the concrete.

As with anything, take this with a grain of salt. I'm not consulting a book for this, I'm simply trying to remember what I can from my waste class. We were looking at the movement of waste from failed packages in a geological repository, but the concept seems pretty similar.

Archiving is hard (5, Insightful)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541949)

I think the moral of this story is that archiving anything, even if it seems durable, is hard. Now, how confident do you feel about those backup tapes that are in the closet down the hall? How much moisture is getting to them just from the humidity in the air?

Re:Archiving is hard (5, Funny)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542465)

I think the *real* moral of this story is that no matter what you do, in 50 years you'll look like an idiot.

Archiving for cheap is hard (2, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542555)

I think the moral of this story is that archiving anything, even if it seems durable, is hard.

I think the moral of the story is that anything built by selecting contractors based on the lowest price meeting the minimum specifications, instead of on proven skills like master and journeyman papers and family businesses who care what their rep will be fifty years from now, will invariably prove to be of shitty quality.

If properly designed and made, there's no reason why a shelter can't be made today that's as good as the several hundred year old basements and cellars in Europe. In areas that see a lot more weather than Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Re:Archiving is hard (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542595)

4.3 ml/yr.

Sometimes I just like to answer rhetorical questions.

nuclear and chemical waste management (4, Interesting)

e**(i pi)-1 (462311) | more than 7 years ago | (#19541985)

the story should be looked at carefully by whoever designs nuclear or chemical wast storage areas. 50 years is nothing in comparison to the time frames deposits should last. In this case, there was the unexpected puncture of the hull, which was devastating. It shows how difficult it is to see all aspects of the problem.

I bet the Russians feel stupid (2, Insightful)

ghoul (157158) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542017)

The USA bluffed them into spending their way into bankruptcy and collapse with all these stories of super weapons and facilities that the USA was supposed to be developing and the Russians had to match dollar for ruble. Well it turns out most of these facilities were junk just like Star Wars and the manned space program. The Russians had the more reliable manned program (Soyuz) all along but got demoralized from all the talk about how capitalism can make everything cheaper and better and they just gave up. I guess we should thank Hollywood for our victory in the Cold War more than the Pentagon or the White House.

Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542073)

You actually believed all that bullshit news from the 80s and early 90s? Damn. You don't also believe Reagan single-handedly brought down the Berlin wall, do you?

Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542133)

Everyone know it was the dinosaurs from the Peter Gabriel music-video that ripped the wall down.

Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (-1, Troll)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542107)

Your first problem is that you believe that there actually was a cold war.

Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (4, Funny)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542251)

Your first problem is that you believe that there actually was a cold war.

Tell it, brother! And that "holocaust" never happened, either! And together, we'll expose that pack of lies that these so-called "world wars" happened, as well!

Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542211)

Well it wasn't a complete bluff. Any followers of Mr "There are legions of terrorists out there waiting to kill us" Rumsfelds career will remember him back in the day when it was Russian nuclear bombers not terrorists lining up to kill us. As was shown later this "bomber gap" was completely fictitious but resulted in the US having a much larger bomber force than the Russians. As missile technology improved the bomber gap was replaced by the missile gap. Now this was actually a real gap, just not in the direction Mr Rumsfeld and his buddies led poople to believe. So the Russians, seriously worried at the US first strike weapons advantage had no choice but to chuck what money they had at their military.

In fact it's somewhat ironic that after all the politically motivated fear mongering in the West during the cold war it turns out the Russians were actually bricking themselves because they knew they were badly outgunned.

Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (1, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542305)

Well it turns out most of these facilities were junk just like Star Wars and the manned space program.

If only the US had embraced the Soviet model and way of life, we'd all be in flying cars be now because of their clear technological superiority! (sheesh) All you've proven is that if you spend enough money on something, any political system can produce results. No one argues that the Russians did good work in space, just like no one argues they have a good chess culture, and a good arts culture. But overall, if you look at their technology, the vast majority of it was utter crap compared to capitalist countries.

In other news, Arab countries have done some good work in palace architecture and irrigated golf courses.

Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542359)

Winning is subjective since Russia hasn't really shrank it's sphere of influence and the people who ran it before (the KGB and central committee) still run it. They are still a force and they have quietly disappeared as "the enemy" but they haven't changed that much. The state runs economic black mail. The old KGB splintered into private enterprise and now run organized crime syndicates. They didn't "lose" they just adapted American tactics.

Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542593)

The Russians had the more reliable manned program
Eh? You've been drinking radioactive water.

Waterproof? (4, Informative)

Dan East (318230) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542043)

Even if the container were waterproof the car would still rust if the humidity wasn't controlled.

Dan East

In other news... (3, Funny)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542051)

The stock market was abuzz last week, seeing lots of activity in the rust futures markets.

- RG>

Was it a vaccum chamber? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542067)

Wouldn't this thing have rusted regardless of if the bunker was water-tight, due to air moisture?

This whole thing doesn't seem like it was well thought out 50 years ago.

Re:Was it a vaccum chamber? (2, Informative)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542197)

I read that it had been treated with cosmoline [wikipedia.org] . That's a rust preventative that's often used to preserve military firearms that are being kept in long-term storage.

Re:Was it a vaccum chamber? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542235)

That's true but 50 years ago rust wasn't very well understood, in America. Most things were still being built from wood at the time. It wasn't until the American elite began to learn European languages and the Queens English sufficiently well to make themselves understood abroad that they were able to make the most of the cultural and scientific aid on offer from Europe and learn about things like rust.

Re:Was it a vaccum chamber? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542379)

Reports mention that is was partially underwater. It was literally in a tank of water for decades.

BitCh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542159)

BSD's filesy5tem to the crowd in

I warned you! (1, Funny)

nlitement (1098451) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542217)

I warned you about the dangers of dihydromonoxide! [petitiononline.com]

I'm not saying we wouldn't get our noses bloodied (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542225)

I'm saying twenty, thirty million dead, tops.

Not a bomb shelter (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542263)

From the article:

The concrete vault encasing the car may have been built to withstand a nuclear attack, but it couldn't keep away water.

I've read numerous stories about the car in the news press and automotive press. CNN is the first agency to mention anything about it being a bomb shelter. There was no door. They had to rip up the sidewalk and dig down half a dozen feet to get to it.

I think the "may" in the above sentence has been wildly mis-interpreted.

Re:Not a bomb shelter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19542401)

You are right, CNN has just decided to "juice up" this story. The car was stored in a simple hole in the ground covered by a slab of concrete.

I live in Tulsa (4, Interesting)

qwertyatwork (668720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542327)

Ive remember hearing stories about this car growing up. It was really neat watching Ms. Belvedere (thats what we call her) finally come out of the ground. It was a little disappointing to see her rusted out, but it gives her character. They took guesses at what the population would be in 2007, and the very first guess was 388,000, and the population figure they are using is 380,000. That was one hell of a guess. Whoever guesses closest wins the car. I hope they give it to a museum. She belongs to all of Tulsa. Take that Oklahoma City!!!

Re:I live in Tulsa (3, Funny)

boaworm (180781) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542485)

Take that Oklahoma City!!!

Yea, you really got them this time!

not literal (4, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542389)

The story says it is a "literal rust bucket". No, it is not a literal rust bucket, it is a FIGURATIVE rust bucket. This is a literal rust bucket. [tondro.com] Actually, no, that isn't a literal rust bucket either, that is a literal rusty bucket, a literal rust bucket would be a bucket which holds rust.

Literally a rust bucket? (2, Funny)

coyotl (415332) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542511)

The once beautiful car is now a literal rust bucket.

Please clarify. Since you use the term 'literal', do you mean that the car is not a bucket containing rust, or a metal bucket which has become rusty?

The damage was done in 1972 (3, Informative)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542535)

in 1972 there was somne excavation work being done 30 ft away, they said back then that they thought they might have damaged it but the city did nothing to fix the problem.

I followed the link and RTFA! Yeah Me! (-1, Offtopic)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 7 years ago | (#19542547)

The thing that will amaze and astonish some people is that I did it in WinXP Pro running Safari! (I'm still waiting for someone to give me a link that will crash it.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>