[frankhorrigan]

I've actually thought about this quite a lot. Not because I have an expertise in the matter--I don't. But because it's such a fascinating thought experiment.

My proposed solution goes something like this: It is hard to convey that there is nothing of value and only danger within. So what if you just made the site actually dangerous on the surface? Is it possible to build something like a lake of acid that would make the area uninhabitable, dangerous, and impossible to develop?

Or, to keep it more abstract: Maybe the problem is that we're looking for the right symbol. But instead of symbols we should make the fact of the area itself the deterrent.

[CptFribble]

Given enough time, literally anything that indicates the slightest bit of "don't go in here" will make someone ask "why go to the trouble if it isn't valuable?

I'm pretty sure the only way to keep people out is to hide it.

[gubbrora]

To toot my own horn a bit, posted this exact idea in the previous thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19761577

The solution is simple in my view. Just make it dangerous enough that they can't get it no matter how much they would want to loot it. And if they can outsmart the dangers we face them with they must be smart enough to figure out how to deal with the radio activity.

[dc_gregory]

You could just make the area incredibly radioactive, problem solved!

[jrochkind1]

That was in fact suggested unironically in addendum initialized "WS" at the end:

> We have all become very marker-prone, but shouldn't we nevertheless admit that, in the end, despite all we try to do, the most effective "marker" for any intruders will be a relatively limited amount of sickness and death caused by the radioactive waste? In other words, it is largely a self-correcting process if anyone intrudes without appropriate precautions, and it seems unlikely that intrusion on such buried waste would lead to large-scale disasters. An analysis of the likely number of deaths over 10,000 years due to inadvertent intrusion should be conducted. This cost should be weighted against that of the marker system.

I'm not convinced. I guess there are levels of radiation poisoning that have effects immediate enough to make it obvious from whence they came. There are also many levels which are not, but will still end or ruin lives.

[wnkrshm]

The big danger isn't individuals dieing from radiation, the danger is contamination of ecosystems with radioactive isotopes.

Above all, engineering and use of the site is to be prevented - nobody should dynamite it and release radioactive dust, nobody should lead a river through it or flood the site, nobody should use parts of it to build anything. Immediate proof that the site is dangerous, by people coming in contact with it dieing while not being contaminated with any kind of radioactive dust, may be a safe and universal isolation of it. Even animals may learn to avoid it.

The only problem is that it's probably impossible to have sufficiently high levels of radiation on the outside of the 'Keep' while still keeping the isotopes safe from any kind of disaster or environmental effects.

[nas]

I think a solution is to create a gradient of radioactivity, so it gets more and more dangerous as you dig deeper.

[mLuby]

The authors seemed to think hiding the site was impossible. However I find it difficult to believe it's harder to hide it than it is build massive earthworks all over it.

[dcbadacd]

Which raises the question, has someone maybe hidden something like this somewhere already on the earth?

[DoctorOetker]

Are you suggesting Oklo is an old radioactive waste site from an ancient civilization?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto...

[ls612]

Aside from the fact that we'd notice something that radioactive today. It is easy enough to hide something from being seen, it would be harder to hide it (especially something as carefully monitored as radiation) from a technologically advanced civilization.

[microtherion]

> Is it possible to build something like a lake of acid that would make the area uninhabitable

Given that the site is supposed to be designed to store barrels of nuclear waste, burying them under a lake of acid seems somewhat counterproductive.

[KeepFlying]

Not a bad thought. Though I think it had some problems that they already considered.

They mention not wanting to overstate the danger ("touch this and you die") in case someone touches the rock and does NOT die, putting doubt on the whole message. I think that poisoning the area creates a similar risk.

If you poison the area then you run the risk of a future civilization cleaning up the obvious poison at the surface, thinking that the message refers to only that poison. This would leave them thinking that the area is safe after their cleanup.

[code_duck]

A lake of acid would massacre wildlife, like tar sands tailing ponds do.