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."

31 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. 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
  3. 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. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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!!!

  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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?
  19. 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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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.

  25. 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