> And they are being down right stupid in their fear of the nuke waste. Yes,
> it is dangerous, but it isn't THAT dangerous.


There's a very good book called "deep time" that deals with the subject of
communication across intervals of 10,000 years or so.  The author worked on
the panel that suggested various ways to communicate the hazards.

They had input from various government bodies too, with suggestions like
burying CDs with the information around the site..

Something that they touched on in the discussion was interesting to me, and
I contacted the author with the idea of constructing fortifications around
the site, all "pointed" inward, based on the concept that regardless of
languages, we seem to be able to identify fortifications as such. Having
them ring the site should convey the idea that there's something dangerous
in the middle, but even then you get to the point of making it
"interesting", where a buried and concealed site would just be another
featureless plot of ground.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist