Analyze

Climbing this "disposal" cell was the main event of our guided tour of the Weldon Spring's Interpretive Center. It represents the "finished product" of the toxic waste clean up project and Legacy Management site. Engineered and constructed with 8 layers of strategically chosen materials, the cell is expected to "deter the migration of [its] contaminants" for up to 1000 years. Thus, it is really more of a storage cell than a disposal cell...

Some of the questions coming from our group concerned the criteria of assessment used to determine the cell's long term durability and functionality. For instance, the cell was designed to control and treat leachate--water that has become contaminated from seeping through the cell--but this capacity has its limits. Though the cell has been designed to handle well-over the historical record of rainfall in the area, climate change has rendered history an ineffective means of predicting the severity of weather in the future.

Another concern is the transfer of knowledge about the cell and its toxic contents. How do we make sure no one opens it up (or blows it up) over the course of 1000 years? The strategy of the DOE is to monitor the cell by testing the local area for contaminants, maintaining strict military surveillance over the area, and by using the interpretive center to educate tourists and the local community about the cell, i.e. Legacy Management. But the US federal government's (or any institution's) ability to keep this up for 1000 years is obviously questionable, at the very best. What is certain here is that, by managing nuclear waste, with its inhuman time scales and the correlate amplification of complexity, we are venturing into uncharted waters. The DOE wants to create the impression that everything is under control and it may be, for the time being. It is also reasonable to take pains not to incite widespread fear and panic. But it is similarly important to recognize that we, in this moment, simply cannot be in control over 1000 years of possibility.

James Oluwalanke

Dr. Pedro de la Torre

STS 201

01/29/2018

Q1. The report was basically about the how flood has been affecting newark over the past years and the adequate control measures/techniques (laws Movements,permits)

that have been put in place to ensure the prevention of flood in Newark.Agencies that prevent flood have also proven efective and functional over time as in indicated

in the text "Historically, New Jersey has taken a strong role in the development of a rigorous floodplain management program at the State level while supporting those

same efforts at the Federal level with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "(Floodplain Mapping Unit paragraph 1).This report would make resident feel

at ease knowing the problem of flooding is uder control.

Reacting to this report, Although Its is very reassuring knowing all these Agencies,funding,laws, and concerns are in place, I believe extra effort should be put in not only

in Newark but also in other flood affected areas in New Jersey and The United States as a whole because water levels are rising (major concern in coastal areas)and new methods should be put in place to

avoid major casualties.
. .

Putting houses up high and making pits deep enough to slow thw water down not damage the house. Houses on higher ground or built higher can lessen the damage costs and repairs to less money. 

Vunerability is when the houses an buildngs are being consumed by debree and water hat could damage the property. The resilience is putting sandbags, reducing the water damage of the building, and planning ahead to stop future floodings.