Mysterious, Ice-Buried Cold War Military Base May Be Unearthed By Climate Change (sciencemag.org) 108
Slashdot reader sciencehabit quotes Science magazine: It sounds like something out of a James Bond movie: a secret military operation hidden beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet. But that's exactly what transpired at Camp Century during the Cold War. In 1959, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the subterranean city under the guise of conducting polar research -- and scientists there did drill the first ice core ever used to study climate. But deep inside the frozen tunnels, the corps also explored the feasibility of Project Iceworm, a plan to store and launch hundreds of ballistic missiles from inside the ice.
The military ultimately rejected the project, and the corps abandoned Camp Century in 1967. Engineers anticipated that the ice -- already a dozen meters thick -- would continue to accumulate in northwestern Greenland, permanently entombing what they left behind. Now, climate change has upended that assumption. New research suggests that as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that, melting could begin to release waste stored at the camp, including sewage, diesel fuel, persistent organic pollutants like PCBs, and radiological waste from the camp's nuclear generator, which was removed during decommissioning.
The military ultimately rejected the project, and the corps abandoned Camp Century in 1967. Engineers anticipated that the ice -- already a dozen meters thick -- would continue to accumulate in northwestern Greenland, permanently entombing what they left behind. Now, climate change has upended that assumption. New research suggests that as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that, melting could begin to release waste stored at the camp, including sewage, diesel fuel, persistent organic pollutants like PCBs, and radiological waste from the camp's nuclear generator, which was removed during decommissioning.
No more global warming (Score:1)
I'd like to make a public commitment to reverse climate change!!
Re: (Score:1)
Ban it!
Re: (Score:2)
The pictures look like the rebel base on Hoth.
Eerily so.
I think they must have payed Lucas to FAKE this whole thing! Like they did for Kubrick with the moon landings.
Re: (Score:2)
I propose a "war on carbon". That approach always works. Nobody will use a substance if we ban it.
Re: (Score:2)
i think if we eliminated 80% of the population, we would be in good shape. But who should we chooose? spread across the globe equally, or by some certain pattern?
Re: (Score:2)
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled"
More information on this is available here. [art-bin.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But who should we chooose? spread across the globe equally, or by some certain pattern?
I vote eugenics. You get to have a kid if you can program a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
tar -zxvf filename.tar.gz
Never really had a problem with that command, it uses gZip to uncompress the file, eXpands the file, is Verbose (usually left off for speed increase), and gives the Filename to uncompress.
Re: (Score:2)
President W suggested a space umbrella. What do you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Might as well say "in the 22nd century". Jesus.
Re: experts say first one thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the guy on the news on the rad-io said they always flip-flop and rewrite their data. Where there's smoke, there's fire, even grandpa knew that.
Re: (Score:3)
Two centuries.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure this is the leaked plot of the next Tomb Raider game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if your calendar is susceptible to the Y2K problem...
Oh, wait, we dodged that bullet, which was supposed to have disastrous consequences too.
Re: (Score:2)
You are admitting that you don't bother learning the whole story. Should we really be expected to pay attention to folks like that?
Re: Military Base my ass... (Score:1)
No, It's The THING and it doesn't like the heat!
Just wait for the future to arrive. (Score:4, Insightful)
as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that, melting could begin to release waste
So in about 200 years, the people alive then will have something to worry about.
To put this into perspective, let's look back at the technology of 1816 and compare it with today's. Then we can assume at least the same level of advancement from now until 2216 (if not, then I would expect the world of that era would have bigger problems than some sewage and diesel at the North Pole) and what would seem like an issue today will be entirely manageable by then.
Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. (Score:4, Informative)
The US and USSR both did a lot of crazy shit during the Cold War. Today, chemical weapons are disposed of via thermal or chemical degradation (and are generally not made anymore), but from 1916 to the 1960s, we built those things assuming we were going to use them, and we made them hard to disassemble. So when they reached the end of their lifetimes we routinely disposed of them by dropping them into the ocean.
Meanwhile the USSR had a nasty habit of doing above-ground nuclear tests in Kazakhstan to see what the effects would be on a civilian population. They purposely didn't warn their citizens there (the USSR didn't have that kind of a government) and surprised them with mushroom clouds. Three generations later, babies are still being born or miscarried [youtube.com] that have no arms, no skeletons, eyes in the wrong places or missing altogether, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
There is a bit more to it than just losing ice off the surface. As the sheet loses mass it will shift and readjust its position. Fissures form at places where the ice is under tension. Melt water falls down into these fissures and starts what amount to underground streams. If these streams cross through areas of lower density ice - say old mostly collapsed tunnels - they will naturally flow along all the interconnecte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After this amount of time the radioactives are fairly benign.
I'd be far more worried about the PCBs and other toxic chemical nasties on the site.
Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. (Score:4, Insightful)
> Then we can assume at least the same level of advancement from now until 2216
Says who? The rate of scientific progress has slowed significantly over the last few decades. Almost everything you see is WWII/cold war tech, refined.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to express a related but dissimilar statement. I agree with the GP in that as a betting man I expect we will have the technology to solve the problem 200 years. I say that because a lot of the precursors exist today.
We have for example effective methods of generating lots of energy in one place with a low carbon foot print, be it a solar technologies or nuclear power. Any respectable chemist would tell you that if you provide him input energy that is cheap and plentiful he or she can make you
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is. Quantum and nuclear physics were the last major areas that would have an effect on daily life. Science progress on basics since then was in areas that are so far removed from our size and energy scales that they are not relevant to technology.
Re: (Score:2)
s/200 years/70 years/
Imminent Disaster! (Score:3, Insightful)
So 50 years ago a military base was abandoned, and in 70 years, the ice/snow will start receding, and then a 100 years after that, waste buried in the ice will be exposed... Wow, I hope we'll be able to organize a clean-up party in the next 170 years, before the waste starts to be exposed!
Re:Imminent Disaster! (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on past reactions to known situations of looming environmental catastrophes, this appears highly unlikely.
Re: Imminent Disaster! (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, 170 years ! The announcement of our initial climate Armageddon was in the early 70s, when the planet was going to freeze over. Then in the 90s it morphed into Global Warming, peaking when Al Gore failed to become the Leader of the Free World, so he took up World a Leader for Global Warming, only to see it morph into the now popular Climate Change in the last ten years or so.
If societ
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: Every time you attempt to disparage climatology by mentioning "global cooling", all you are doing is admitting you get your scientific information from the mainstream media. That's it. You are not commenting on the science, its data, its methodologies, nothing - just sitting there saying "I don't read scientific papers, but here's why I think scientific papers are nonsense!". The fact you also mention a politician when discussing the veracity of climate change also reeks of someone who doesn't und
Re: (Score:3)
I hope we'll be able to organize a clean-up party in the next 170 years, before the waste starts to be exposed!
I doubt it- in the given scenario where the earth's temperature rises by 5 degrees Centigrade, this dump would probably be the least of our problems.
Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
"New research suggests that as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that...."
As scientist have proven unable to predict weather, much less Climate, I say we have a few years to worry about this. Currently snow and ice forming is out running the melting, EVERY YEAR, CURRENTLY, ITS GETTING BURIED DEEPER AND DEEPER. Possibly, in maybe 80 years the melting might keep up the new snow/ice formation and begin reversing. 100 years afterwards, maybe, we have an issue to deal with. Seeing as this could be cleaned up and moved with less then a years work (200 years from now when its almost naturally uncovered....why are we talking about this. Looks like more "the sky is falling" news to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Currently snow and ice forming is out running the melting, EVERY YEAR
Link?
I suspect you're making one of two common mistakes with claims like this: confusing land ice with sea ice, and confusing the Arctic with the Antarctic.
in maybe 80 years the melting might keep up the new snow/ice formation and begin reversing.
Link?
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
This is land ice, not surface sea ice (which is declining year by year: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] for a time-lapse). Land ice is declining in the rest of of Greenland which lies outside the accumulation zone.
Re: (Score:2)
We do have accurate models. You not knowing about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Why are you so angry with scientists instead of yourself? It's your job to educate you, not theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim isn't, "the sky is falling." The claim is, "the secret garbage pile might not remain secret forever. And is made of garbage."
Don't bother with the link in the summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Do yourself a favor and have a look at the youtube video in the NPR link. It was produced by the war department. It's fascinating. I especially like how the solders were handling the fuel rods in t-shirts and no protective equipment at all.
I am quite sure every single one of those poor guys died a horrible death not long after.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!! Great read and interesting video.
Also, for the folks that assume the problem is 170 years away, one of the concerns is meltwater bringing the waste to the ocean well before the camp is actually exposed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
uhh... you do realize those fuel rods are in lead shields right? they have Geiger counters and shit around.
what protective equipment is gonna help you handling a fuel rod? wearing 100lbs of lead?
so long its sealed in a cask and you don't have dust around its fine... the army is not completely retarded
Re: (Score:2)
Do yourself a favor and have a look at the youtube video in the NPR link. It was produced by the war department. It's fascinating. I especially like how the solders were handling the fuel rods in t-shirts and no protective equipment at all. I am quite sure every single one of those poor guys died a horrible death not long after.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th... [npr.org]
Why would every poor guy handling fuel rods be dead already? Looking at how everyone seems to smoke back then, I expect more solders died of smoking that any radiation issues. (Remember they are handling new fuel rods, which are not all that dangerous.)
Re: (Score:2)
which means pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that donâ(TM)t inhale live longer than non-smokers.
This doesn't make any sense. The tobacco in pipes is sold by the same companies that make the cigarettes, so one would expect it to be similarly bad.
In fact a quick google turns up numerous studies that say just that: example graph [oxfordjournals.org]
So pipe smokers and cigar smokers are very similar in developing cancers and mortality rates. Cigarette smokers do worse for some cancers and better for other.
As to why: I read a study years ago that concluded that smokers of "light" cigarettes developed deeper and more lethal lun
Re: (Score:2)
There are several factors at work for smoking-related cancers.
1: Chemical (tobacco smoke and the additives in cigarettes that are there to keep them burning)
2: Thermal - this is what gets pipe smokers with lip and tooth cancers
3: Radiological - yes really. Look up "Polonium 210 on tobacco"
#2 stops being a factor as soon as the smoker stops. #1 clears out after 6-10 weeks
#3 is the gift that keeps on giving. A smoker's lungs are fizzing with radioactivity, to the point where they'd be classified as high-level
Re:Don't bother with the link in the summary (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget the DYE stations (Score:5, Interesting)
The US also had a series of DYE radar installations on the Greenland Ice Sheet - together they made up the DEW (Distant Early Warning) line. Climate scientists drilled ice cores at those locations as well.
I used to work in an ice core climate research group. I've never been to any of the DYE stations (although I did spent parts of some summers on the Greenland ice sheet); but there's a simple reason why those ice cores were drilled at these defense installations - logistics. It's difficult and expensive to get to, set up, and maintain a camp on the ice sheet. Piggybacking on already-existing military infrastructure saves time and money.
Camp Century wasn't a secret. (Score:2)
Newsman Walter Cronkite even went there. What was a secret was what they were up to -- which by the way they didn't explain honestly to the Danish government, which was told this was a polar research station but didn't know that the ultimate aim was to set up a missile base.
Uhhhhh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the Dark Ages, before smartphones and Pokemon Go, every schoolchild in the United States of America learned about the Viking settlements in Greenland.
Those settlements included dairy farms.
Those settlements were there, doing well, for 269 years.
They eventually shut down when the glacier moved south, it being really difficult to graze cattle on top of a glacier.
The Greenland ice sheet has not been there forever, people. Its progress southward can be tracked in the historical records from the Vikings. They left behind detailed notes on the development of the glacier, because it affected where the boats could make landfall.
Re: (Score:2)
"They eventually shut down when the glacier moved south, it being really difficult to graze cattle on top of a glacier"
This part has been disproven. The moraines of the glaciers in question show they never moved forward.
There's no doubt it got colder - this was part of the european medeval cooling period - which was probably related to a peturbation of the Gulf Stream (aka "the mini-ice age") but increased glaciation had little to do with the settlements being abandoned. It was just plain tough living there
Re: (Score:2)
the farms and settlements you speak of were in the same places people are still settled today: on the coasts on the bit of land not covered by ice.
no, the ice sheet did not move south and force the Vikings out.
Re: (Score:2)
You evidently missed the furor a few years ago when the glacier retreated, revealing some of the old farms.
The AGW crowd screamed at the top of their lungs, that this PROVED that Global Warming was happening. They were strangely silent when the area re-glaciated, again burying the farms.
Re: (Score:2)
Still waiting for your link...
Documentary (Score:2)
I could watch stuff like this all day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Gather some evidence, write a paper, and get a Nobel prize or two. Either you don't understand what you are saying, or you are criminally lazy. Pick one.
Greenland and Arctic data (Score:2)
If we use the Scientific Method (rather than anecdotes) we look at data. Here is the Danish Meteorological Institute's measurements (Greenland is administered by Denmark)
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland... [www.dmi.dk]
Of particular interest is this graph:
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_d... [www.dmi.dk] Here is the Arctic Ice Extent:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice... [ocean.dmi.dk]
Here is the late-summer Arctic ice extent. Temperatures drop below freezing in a week from now and the Arctic ice will start accumulating again (this is from an Ameri
Re: (Score:2)
"the total ice cover of the globe is actually increasing"
1km^3 of land ice makes about 750-800km^2 of sea ice - and once it's on the sea, it's already affected sea levels.
Increases in Antarctic sea ice are a direct result of increased melt runoff (it's making the water less salty which in turn means it freezes at higher temperatures) and they ONLY happen in winter. All that sea ice rapidly disappears in summer.
Disclosure: I work with climate scientists. They're fed up to the back teeth of ignorant people cl
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have anything to refute the data I have presented? I thought not.
1km^3 of land ice makes about 750-800km^2 of sea ice - and once it's on the sea, it's already affected sea levels.
According to the sea level data the sea level has been at approximate the same rate for a LONG time. Here is Data from the Australian CSIRO:
http://realclimatescience.com/... [realclimatescience.com]
Remember, before 1950 even the IPCC claims all the rise is natural, and only after 1950 is there any anthropogenic component. So, based on the ACTUAL DATA do you see any statistically significant change from natural to 'man-made' ? No, you do not.
Disclosure: I work with climate scientists. They're fed up to the back teeth of ignorant people claiming that increases in Antarctic sea ice mean AGW isn't a "thing". The reality is that summer ice minimums keep decreasing.
I was an ast
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. I thought you were discussing science, not some conspiracy being waged in your head. Tragic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
JFC that was a pile of stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
"Mysterious"?? (Score:2)
The Air Force dug some tunnels during the cold war to launch missiles. What is so "mysterious" about it?
Trump Is not A Scientist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is totally a problem that your grandchildren will have to fix when they grow up and not something for you to worry about.
2090? Sucks for you (Score:2)
I'll be long gone by then so I don't give the furry crack of a rat's behind. Also, get off my lawn.
Prediction Category 2: too far to test (Score:1)
as early as 2090
There seem to be two categories of climate change prediction: too soon to matter ("It's not climate, it's weather"), and too late to test ("as early as 2090").
There is another category: "long enough to be about climate rather than weather, and wrong", but we don't hear about those much.
Think of the children (Score:1)
In this case, not just the children, children that have yet to be born, probably for a couple of centuries. Even then, that's a maybe. Sounds like more Man Mad Global Warming bullshit. As if everyone will suddenly say - oh, gee, let's start doing something about it. I'll put up those solar panels, we'll do away with gasoline, we'll do away with everything else they SAY is contributing to MMGW, including killing off about 3/4 of the human population (Leaving about 1.5 billion of us behind). A lot of people d