Filippo, 

The mistake here is in thinking this is a design exercise. It's not. It's a special investigation (through a contract to U. Indiana) by the government to learn the range of options available to fulfill a policy obligation. 

In our work — at The Policy Lab, and at UNIDIR — to bridge design and public policy, this is one of the lessons that designers interested in this work need to contend with. Namely, how to identify, build and utilize design space in the public sector. It is a very tricky world, and there is a reason for this. I'm currently writing an article on that subject.

The Seboek study (which I've now read), states on page 1:

> One mechanism to decrease the likelihood of human interference is a requirement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its regulation, 10 CFR 60 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983), which requires permanent markers and records for waste repositories to warn potential intruders o f what is there. The U.S. Department of Energy, anticipating the final closure of a completed repository, and recognizing the requirement for a warning system, has set up the Human Interference Task Force through the Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation. This paper is part of the study of the Task Force. It deals with semiotic techniques designed to restrict, if not altogether prevent, access to thematerial. 
> 

As nuclear waste has a 10,000 (half) life span, that was the interpretation given to the regulation, and therefore Policy + interpretation = design brief.

Derek
_________________
Dr. Derek B. Miller
Director

The Policy Lab
321 Columbus Ave.
Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
Boston, MA 02116
United States of America

Phone
+1 617 440 4409
Twitter
@Policylabtweets
Web
www.thepolicylab.org

On Monday, March 28, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Filippo A. Salustri wrote: 
> *sigh* While that competition is a fascinating design exercise, it's
> rather pointless for 2 reasons:
> 1. nothing is "leak-proof" (or fool-proof, or anything-else-proof)
> 2. the chances of any government approving the siting of such a
> facility in such a location is about the same as those of my winning
> the a national lottery 5 times in a row (at most).
> 
> Wouldn't it have been more fruitful to use whatever resources were
> expended on that competition to do something a little more feasible?
> 
> Cheers.
> Fil
> 
> On 27 March 2011 16:10, Ann Thorpe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Derek,
> > I also heard about this project from a public artist who may have been
> > involved, Mierle Laderman Ukeles. She described it as a Department of Energy
> > project regarding how we should mark nuclear waste storage facilities so
> > people would understand them as 'harzardous' thousands of years into the
> > future. Sorry I don't have any more of a source than that.
> > 
> > In a related project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists held a
> > 'Plutonium Memorial Competition' soliciting hypothetical proposals for a
> > leak-proof and securable but highly visible dump for the world's growing
> > stockpile of plutonium. This article in ID profiles the winning proposal--to
> > site the thing on the mall in Washington DC because, 'It could be easily
> > policed there, while silently reproaching lawmakers for their shortsighted
> > nuclear policies.'
> > http://www.id-mag.com/article/2003_Annual_Design_Review_Concepts_Best_of_Cat
> > egory/
> > 
> > Best,
> > Ann
> > 
> > 
> > Dr Ann Thorpe
> > .....................................
> > Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
> > Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
> > 
> > +44 (0)77 1747 1606
> > .....................................
> > book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
> > blog: http://designactivism.net
> > twitter: @atlasann
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:15:16 +0100
> > > From: Derek Miller <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Subject: Does anyone remember: NASA, 1980s, Hazmat, the future Š
> > > 
> > > I've looked. I can't find it. My compound question is: Does anyone remember
> > > what this was, and if so, can you point me to a primary source:
> > > 
> > > Sometime in the 1980s I read a piece about how NASA had commissioned artists
> > > (designers?) to try and imagine a future some 10,000 years ahead. Their job
> > > was to find a means of communicating that the ground "here" was hazardous and
> > > people shouldn't go here. They shouldn't even visit let alone stay, grow
> > > crops, etc. The artists were to take almost nothing for granted. Languages may
> > > have evolved. Libraries destroyed. Our physical appearances may have changed
> > > somewhat. The basic brief was to try and communicate to such people. It may
> > > have been Discover magazine (U.S.) and they printed the paintings and ideas
> > > and analyzed them.
> > > 
> > > Won't get into a discussion on this until my memory is refreshed. But if
> > > anyone remembers this, I would be grateful.
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Derek
> > > 
> > > _________________
> > > Dr. Derek B. Miller
> > > Director
> > > 
> > > The Policy Lab
> > > 321 Columbus Ave.
> > > Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
> > > Boston, MA 02116
> > > United States of America
> > > 
> > > Phone
> > > +1 617 440 4409
> > > Twitter
> > > @Policylabtweets
> > > Web
> > > www.thepolicylab.org
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> M5B 2K3, Canada
> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> Fax: 416/979-5265
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>