Slashdot Mirror


Nuke-Proof Bunker Turns Out Not Waterproof

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."

73 of 400 comments (clear)

  1. But was the in the specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:But was the in the specs? by g0dsp33d · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      lol: You see no door there!
  2. Duck and Cover by omeomi · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    1. Re:Duck and Cover by saibot834 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Duck and Cover: Watch on youtube / Download at archive.org (avi/mpg/mp4) / Wikipedia article
      Nowadays we can laugh about it but consider that people might laugh in 30 years about what we think now.

    2. Re:Duck and Cover by Workaphobia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    3. Re:Duck and Cover by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Duck and Cover by ZigZagDoobie · · Score: 2, Funny

      For me... I'll take one of those old school desks from 1955 to duck and cover. I belive they were designed to withstand the NukeBlows of little kids explosive farts after one of those chili school lunches. They should have put one of those desks in the vault.

    5. Re:Duck and Cover by king-manic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given how much radiation sickness sucks and the fatality rate, being close enough to die of a head trauma guarantees being close enough to die from radiation poisoning. OF the two I'd prefer head trauma.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    6. Re:Duck and Cover by TheBracket · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's interesting about 'duck and cover' (and other civil defense campaigns from the era) is that it's nowhere near as useless as it sounds. The primary kill mechanism of a nuclear bomb (not 'neutron bomb', which really should be called 'reduced blast nuclear weapon'), so being in cover can help a lot. The secondary kill mechanism is prompt radiation, manifesting as the flash - likewise, if that doesn't hit you, then you have a much greater chance of survival. The tertiary mechanism is fallout, and it's one that a lot of systems are designed to minimize (who wants to conquer a highly radioactive landscape?); most fallout comes from the actual explosion cloud touching down, sucking in dirt particles that are rendered highly radioactive. Because of this, a lot of work was done to minimize the fireball radius - and also most warheads were designed to airburst high enough to avoid the problem. You can read about this in The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, and also in a number of discussions of the issue in various defense studies/international studies journals.

      What's REALLY interesting is why we, in the West, abandoned civil defense. With the wholesale adoption of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory, it was considered a DOWNSIDE to be able to save one's population - so civil defense, missile defense, air defense, and shelters all vanished from the budget. The theory being that you want everyone to be as vulnerable as possible - because otherwise the cost of launching a nuclear strike may seem low enough to make a nuclear war palatable. It amazes me to this day that the US persuaded its allies to buy into that theory. Yes, nuclear war sucks - but it seems that maximizing the damage it would do to you in the name of avoiding one is rather shortsighted. That's especially true in the post-cold war multipolar world. It's hard to say 'MAD works' when suddenly you are trying to deter anyone capable of building a nuclear device - which overall, really isn't that hard to do.

      --
      Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
    7. Re:Duck and Cover by dzfoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, nuclear war sucks - but it seems that maximizing the damage it would do to you in the name of avoiding one is rather shortsighted.


      Except for the simple fact that It Worked.

              -dZ.
      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    8. Re:Duck and Cover by Coyoteold1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      When I was a kid, they were still teaching us "nuclear preparedness drills."

      They included such gems as (I am not making these up):

      "If you hear the nuclear explosion, do not look toward the sound, because the flash of light will blind you." (Wow! I guess atomic sound travels faster than the speed of light!)

      and...

      "Hide under your desks until the teacher says it is okay."

      and...

      "If you see a bright flash of light, and there is a giant cloud shaped like a mushroom, tell your teacher immediately."

    9. Re:Duck and Cover by TheBracket · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's the funny thing about deterrence in general. The only way to prove that it worked is to prove a negative - there wasn't a nuclear war. It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative, so we can't be sure that the cold war didn't turn nuclear-hot because we deterred the soviets (and were in turn deterred by them). Do we really want to rely on the same unprovable approach in the new, multi-polar world (especially when Chinese leaders have in the past commented that China shouldn't fear nuclear war, because a few million deaths would still leave them with many million more people - I believe that was Mao, but Deng Zhaou Ping [spelling?] supposedly repeated it)?

      There are broadly three ways to look at it (from a military/strategic point of view, since all this really does is support the political/diplomatic arena anyway); not mutually exclusive:
      - Rely on deterrence. It might be existential deterrence (that is, "we have nukes - they deter"), or it might include a genuine willingness to use the weapons if a certain line is crossed. If it isn't obvious that you will use them at a certain point, the deterrent loses credibility - and your influence is whittled down by a thousand papercuts (see below). Some deterrence theorists have stated that a nuclear-armed neighborhood is a polite neighborhood, although the jury is still out on that (certainly Israel, India and Pakistan have had no shortage of wars since becoming nuclear powers).

      - Rely on might. In this case, you want to have a really effective nuclear force, the strongest defenses you can afford, and a doctrine that makes it obvious that you will escalate to the nuclear option if you need to.

      - Rely on arms control. Basically attempt to keep the lid on the nuclear can of worms as much as possible, and try to agree upon arms levels with other countries. The only problem here is that it's really easy to agree arms control with countries you weren't really going to fight anyway, and rather hard to agree with countries with whom you are genuinely likely to have a shooting war.

      I remember talking to some of Bush Senior's administration while I was in college, talking about their discussions of the nuclear option in Gulf War 1. A large part of the government wanted to rule it out altogether, regardless of chemical-biological threats. A committee did actually draft a strategy for using tactical nukes in the initial attack, but it was ruled out very fast - not because of long-term problems (a small tac-nuke isn't much worse for the environment than an FAE), but because it would have taken far too many tactical nukes to really make much difference militarily! In the end, the decision was made to formally "not rule anything out" if Hussein used chemical/biological weapons; a decision to not have a policy. Discussions were ongoing, but an answer was never forthcoming to "will we even consider using nukes?" - let alone "how badly do they have to hit us before we'll consider it?" I'm told that similar discussions occurred for various other small-medium regional contingencies over the years.

      On the other hand, we've built up the word about deterrence so strongly (including the nuclear armed neighborhood statement!) that world leaders who might be invaded are all scrambling to get nuclear weapons. Even if they don't plan to use them (who knows?), it's a fair gamble that the big powers will be less willing to invade if it means a nuclear attack.

      One day, there will be a small nuclear war with modern weapons. When the dust settles, and we discover that it was nothing like Armageddon, the can will be off the nuclear can of worms forever - and we'll be stuck having to come up with policies that rely on capability and actions, rather than an abstract, unprovable and arguably purely philosophical notion of deterrence.

      --
      Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
  3. What did they expect ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:What did they expect ... by hughk · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:What did they expect ... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny but it was Chevy that had the bad reputation for rusting back then. A former teacher once remarked that he knew someone who took extremely good care of their Vega, or the like, and in under a couple years it had a rust hole in the fender "so big you could throw a cat through it", referring to the way a cat would sprawl its legs. I see old Ford cars and trucks all the time but almost the only Chevy vehicles I see are the old collectibles, otherwise most don't seem to have survived.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    3. Re:What did they expect ... by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should have taken a clue from Planet of the Apes and used a Volkswagon Beetle.

      1976 Ford Granada. 4 years from show-room to scrap yard, at 60,000 miles. Front end literally fell apart after 2 years, and the power steering managed to disconnect from the steering wheel - fortunately while parking. Also developed the infamous "Ford transmission that wouldn't stay in Park" around the 50,000 mile mark, the undersized Uniroyal tires that wore out prematurely, etc.

      If any manufacturer today put out a POS like that, they'd be forced to make multiple recalls, and then they'd go belly-up. If it weren't for the current low interest rates and the home equity ATM buying spree, both Ford and GM would have gone bankrupt by now.

      As it is, Toyota has taken the #1 spot worldwide

  4. Hey, they never claimed it was! by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! by iknowcss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    2. Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Informative


      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
      doesn't make this vault look terribly waterproof.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! by timeOday · · Score: 3, Funny

      It was the 50's, they should've used a big tupperware.

  5. old cars by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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?

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:old cars by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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. :-/
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    2. Re:old cars by dal20402 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:old cars by freeweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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"?

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    4. Re:old cars by starnix · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good luck finding a 63 mustang to compare.

  6. Similar screw-up... by Oswald · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  7. Blue Ray.... err, Peter by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The British kids' TV show, Blue Peter 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.

    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.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:Blue Ray.... err, Peter by mikael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  8. Cunning bastards by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  9. Gamma particles by narced · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Gamma particles by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Informative

      Water is good at turning corners.

      rj

    2. Re:Gamma particles by Nukee · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  10. Archiving is hard by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    1. Re:Archiving is hard by RenderSeven · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Archiving is hard by Andrzej+Sawicki · · Score: 2, Funny

      It takes much less than that for many people.

    3. Re:Archiving is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really, all you need a hermetical seal. The time capsule that my high school class did was dug up after 25 years. Several of us ignored the idiot instructors and placed our items inside PVC pipe with glued ends on it. Everything else was pretty mildew covered except the items in the PVC pipe, all of that was clean and new.

      I know of several people that use PVC pipe with end caps as waterproof backyard buried safes. It works great and today you can throw desiccant pillows in there to keep things fresher.

      it's just the reatrted "experts" from the 50's to 80's were more full of their importance than trying to use the best way of preserving some thing for 50+ years.

      And yes, i feel really good about the box of Bernulli disks I have stored. 15 years old and still very readable.

  11. nuclear and chemical waste management by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. I bet the Russians feel stupid by ghoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Once money does not matter anymore all that matters is the satisfaction of having done a good job and created a perfect product as well as the non monetary recognition from your peers of having done a good job.

      The flaw in your logic is the assumption that most people care about doing a good job. The vast majority of people choose to maximize the pleasure in their lives, generally through leisure. You seriously think the garbage man cares about doing the best job he can? Or the bookkeeper? Or the assembly line worker? Hell no. Most people just want to get through the day with as little effort as possible so they can make it to the weekend when they can go fishing. Once money doesn't matter anymore and there is little penalty for mediocrity, why would someone care about his *job*, which is the least fun part of their life?

      Of course, I'm not even addressing the lack of incentives for innovation.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Come on man. The historical debate is over, communism lost. It's been an abject failure. Even China has given up on it, and the more capitalist they get the faster thier economy is growing. It has perhaps caused more human suffering and misery than any other idea in history.

      You cannot have communism unless everyone cooperates. You can't have that without cooersion. That's why every communist goverment that every existed as been made up of jackboot thugs and secret-police. Capitalism is the only way known to produce wealth without cooersion.

      I for one would rather live on an island where I had to gather food or starve, VS the Island where I have enough food but I'm forced to work on a farm or I'd get shot. That's the difference between communism and capitalism. So even if communism and capitalism were equal in generating wealth, and it's not even close, I'd rather not be a slave.

      Look at East Germany VS West Germany before the wall fell. People were only fleeing in one direction. Look at North korea VS South Korea. You can see the difference from space.

      The historical debate is over. You cannot still be a thinking person who knows any history and be a communist.

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    4. Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This moral development you're talking about- I haven't seen it. I do agree that in theory, communism would be better, but I think saying that is a lot like saying it would be better if everything we could ever want rained from the sky. I think human nature is selfish and unless you neuter the drive to better one's own and one's family's life, communism won't work. I don't see that happening without drugs or some other sort of mind control, and I don't want to be neutered. I don't want to have to trust a giant government to make the best use of my time and to give me what they think I need. I don't trust any orginzation with that kind of power, and I value my freedom over my security. So even if communism could make me richer, which it can't, I'd die fighting it.

      And the capitalist free market has been, always, orders of magnitude more efficient than government. Capitalist systems are competitive, and the inefficient die off. The free market, except in the case of uncompensated externalties, is perfect for regulating use of resources: whoever will pay the most is the one who needs/wants it most, and gets it. Aircraft aluminum isn't used for soda cans or refrigerators. That's because it is scarce and useful, thus expensive, so is used only used where they're needed most, that is, in airplanes. The free market also organizes people into doing tasks in a way governments could only dream of. Everyone, at every step of the way, is doing it for personal gain, and in doing so they've built everything we know. This is the invisible hand of the free market. People working for thier own gain making everyone richer.

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
  13. Waterproof? by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Waterproof? by Windows+Breaker+G4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think this will answer your question. http://buriedcar.myphotoalbum.com/view_photo.php?s et_albumName=album04&id=DSC08671_1 The bag she was rapped in was also ripped around the rear drivers side fin. They figure that the water had been to the top at least a few times.

      --
      brickspeed.net for your old Volvo performance addiction
  14. Re:What indicates it isn't waterproof? by PorkNutz · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    Funny Shirts @ ProStoner.com

  15. In other news... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  16. Re:Was it a vaccum chamber? by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  17. Re:Was it a vaccum chamber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  18. Re:Vaults? by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
  19. I live in Tulsa by qwertyatwork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!!!

    1. Re:I live in Tulsa by boaworm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Take that Oklahoma City!!!

      Yea, you really got them this time!
      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
  20. not literal by Myopic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. 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.

  21. Literally a rust bucket? by coyotl · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

    --
    ron lussier / lenscraft / fine art giclee prints/ sausalito / ca
  22. The damage was done in 1972 by night_flyer · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  23. Archiving for cheap is hard by arth1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  24. The right way to write a Russian Reversal by mk_is_here · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:The right way to write a Russian Reversal by sentientbeing · · Score: 3, Funny

      The city fathers have been planning this for years. They must feel really stressed out and embarrassed.
       
      Maybe if they each swallowed a handful of those tranquilizers they found, im sure it would take the edge off.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    2. Re:The right way to write a Russian Reversal by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Funny

      These days? Ummm... Minimum wage is about $7... minus taxes, of course. So, yeah. Something like $5-6 profit. Why do you ask?

  25. Re:How times have changed... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Funny

    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...
    How? From tranquilizers to Prozac?
  26. The really sad part... by ToastyKen · · Score: 5, Funny

    is that they put the gasoline in there because they thought the world would be so advanced in the 21st century that we would've moved way beyond that. :P

    1. Re:The really sad part... by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative

      "is that they put the gasoline in there because they thought the world would be so advanced in the 21st century that we would've moved way beyond that. :P"

      We HAVE moved far away from 50's-grade gasoline. No lead, and no more needing to change your fuel filter every 6,000-10,000 miles because there are way fewer contaminants.

      You wouldn't want to stick that old gunk in todays cars, even if it did have a higher octane rating. You *might* go fast, but you won't go far.

    2. Re:The really sad part... by StarWreck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We have moved way beyond that. You can't buy leaded gasoline anymore and that car only runs on leaded gasoline.

      Although, you can buy artificial imitation lead additive.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    3. Re:The really sad part... by qzulla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really way beyond. Removing the lead is an incremental step. Way beyond would be fuel cells, full electric, solar, whatever. Anything not fossil would be way beyond.

      And the car would run on unleaded. It would run a bit hotter and, in the long term, wear out quicker because the lead acted as a lubricant.

      qz

  27. In Cuba... by ratboot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure we could find the same car (same model, same year) that's been used every day since the 50s in better shape! No joke.

  28. If you want to see a nuclear bunker done right... by pongo000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...pay a visit to the Minuteman Missle National Historic Site in South Dakota. They offer tours of an underground Minuteman Delta launch bunker on a appointment-only basis, 6-8 to a group. The bunker itself, built in the 60's, is actually an air-tight, climate-controlled concrete capsule suspended on giant shock absorbers about 150 feet below the surface. The only entrance into the capsule is via a 5-ton vault door that could be opened and shut in under a minute. It provides a fascinating insight into the Cold War and the level of redundancy that was in place to ensure that if a launch was ordered, it would happen (for instance, launch orders would be given to a number of different launch sites simultaneously, so no launch site personnel would be aware of who actually launched a missle).

    Interesting story: There was an "emergency egress" hatch in the capsule that led to the surface through a corrugated pipe. There were only a few problems: The hatch door weighed over 200 pounds and dropped down from the ceiling, ensuring the first one out would probably be the last one out. And the government was afraid the Russkies knew where the egress points were on the surface, so the government poured a parking lot over it. Only problem was they failed to tell the launch controllers that their "emergency egress" system led to the underside of a parking lot. This was all top-secret stuff, never came to light until after the sites were decommissioned and dismantled.

  29. And the best part is... by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a contest! Some lucky person actually gets to win that old, rusted-out bucket!

    From the award letter:

    CONGRATULATIONS! You have won this 1957 Plymouth Belvedere, stored in a time capsule 50 years ago! (See picture)

    Please make arrangements to have the vehicle moved off of city property as soon as possible or we will have to start fining you $50/day.

  30. Re:Ok, we get the idea by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    The vehicles one would expect in a post-apocalyptic dystopia are those at the top of the (performance*maintainability) curve _at_ the time of the _apocalyptic event_.

    Bicycles... man what a depressing movie that would be.

  31. Re:I live in Tulsa and lived there then by Coyote · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw the car buried and now I've seen it dug back up. It was built to withstand a nuclear bomb because fear of nuclear war was on everyone's mind in 1957, but it was never intended to be anything other than a vault for the car. At the time Tulsa's largest employer was Douglas Aircraft, building Boeing B-47 bombers for the Strategic Air Command, so Tulsa folks considered the town a prime target for a nuke attack.

    The car was buried in a spirit of celebration of Oklahoma's 50th anniversary of statehood, but I think in many people's minds, they thought it might be the only thing that survived the unavoidable nuclear attack. (What a legacy, eh?)

    As far as the bunker not being very good protection against a nuke, we school kiddies of the time were being taught to duck under our desks and cover our necks when we saw the flash of a nuclear explosion. If THAT was good enough... just imagine how cool a concrete-covered bunker was.

    --
    My metamoderation cancels your moderation
  32. Hope despite cold war fears by ObiWonKanblomi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm amazed not one slashdotter here realized the point I'm about to make.

    Most revisionist historians often reflect on the fear that Americans had of being obliterated in the 1950s from a nuclear catastrophe. For a midwestern American city in 1957 to have a contest to determine how many would be living there in 50 years and especially predict the winning guesser (or closest of kin) would be alive in 50 demonstrates there was hope for a future.

  33. I think about that... by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...when the proponents of nuclear powered everything talk about how easy it is to store waste for 10,000 years or something. Maybe it is or maybe it isn't, but humans track records on this sort of thing are not that good. At a minimum I think it will always be harder than they say, and never be as reliable. And certainly not cheap.

    As for records archiving, as long as the net stays up we have a global backup system, because we can keep leapfrogging technologies, there is no start and stop point where we change everything all at once. Static archiving gets into troubles because of entropy, stuff just starts falling apart. If the whole net ever goes down hard globally for some years, we would lose a lot of data. Current paper isn't that good, photos fade fast on most media, plastic disk based isn't that good, harddrives aren't that good, etc. Each has a few good points and some bad points, but none of them are really designed for centuries or millenia AFAIK. A few years or dozens of years anecdotal from someone with their pet favorite media does not equal centuries or millenia. It's a guess and a crapshoot really we just don't know. We've already lost just a ton of old filmed media, TV shows and movies, from the last century, film just didn't cut it long haul, requires a lot of expensive care, and we need something that doesn't require expensive and elaborate care, and digital format requires the media to be matched to the hardware it was designed for, that has to be archived as well, and kept in perfect operating conditions.



        We are a society that lost our freaking moon tapes! And even before that it had gotten to the point only a few existing pieces of hardware could even access the stuff, and that was some pretty important records. And that is *short term* historically speaking. Real short term.



        We have to keep human nature involved in this discussion as well as just the nuts and bolts of archiving. Stuff gets lost or stolen and artificially lost or just gets wet or forgotten about and starts to just rot away. We have right now a fastfood society, nothing is considered all that important. We pay lip service to archiving, sure, I'll admit that, but really, it's a symptom of our short term profits business world and throw away society.

    Then you have to consider, exactly what is really worth saving for that long anyway? All of it, all of everything we do, all the records? It's gonna get pretty expensive eventually if we keep trying to do that.

  34. Qoheleth FIGHT! by Robotron23 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ecclesiastes battle!

    "I returned and saw under the nuclear winter, that the nukes are not to the wise, nor the silos to the rich, nor the bunkers to the smart, nor testing areas to the islanders; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

  35. Ironic by BigFoot48 · · Score: 2, Funny

    that the ten gallons of gasoline left in the bunker is worth more than the car!