Why not use a nuke to stop the oil spill?

[KillCapitalism]

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/use-nukes-to-contain-the-oil-spill.php

It's been done by the Russians with success. Environmental experts here chime in. Wouldn't a nuke be less damaging to the environment than oil continuing to spew into the ocean for weeks or months on end?

[Iggo]

1. Cuz then they'd lose the oil.

[Incitatus]

2. How? They know where the well is. They could drill other wells. nt

[TheWraith]

6. Precisely. That argument is nonsense.

Frankly, it's more and more looking like we might not have any choice. I just hope that if they do go that direction, they do it sooner rather than later.

[Incitatus]

13. I thought they were already planning on that.

If drilling other wells to stop this leak is a last resort and it is not certain if these other measures will work, they should be moving other platforms to drill that well right now.

[Statistical]

28. They actually started drilling 10 days ago.

No matter what stops the oil temporarily the relief well is the permanent solution.

Fill the shaft with a miles or so of concrete.

[Owl]

44. Let's hope the "relief well" doesn't screw-up and just poke another big gusher!

[gristy]

3. The effectiveness of a large explosive device in shutting down the flow, let alone

its impact on the environment, is certainly beyond my abilities. We'll see how this thread goes, I guess, won't we.

[hlthe2b]

4. Why don't we all line up for our Jim Jones kool aid...

while we are at it? Geebus. As if this mega oil spew is not bad enough....Now you want to fix it with a nuclear holocaust.

[TheWraith]

5. Since you don't know what you're talking about, why are you talking?

This is actually a credible idea put forward by serious scientists, which has been successfully used in the past. But hey, internet message board guy knows better.

[hlthe2b]

8. Excuse me.. But no one on this site is a nuclear scientist, I will

be willing to bet. Are YOU? If not then you can just take your own advice and shut the >>> up.

What I DO know about is the aftermath of nuclear testing out in the Bikini atoll. And this is NOT some small matter.

[Statistical]

29. Bikini Atoll wasn't a detonation of a small device underground under 5000ft of water.

[TheWraith]

42. Actually, there ARE nuclear scientists on here.

As well as a lot of very skilled engineers, and people who generally know what they're talking about, instead of throwing around wild claims like the use of a nuke to seal the well would kill the world. It's particularly silly when you know that the Russians have done this a number of times before. If you think Bikini Atoll is in any way comparable to using one small nuclear device under a mile of ocean, then I suggest that you're missing out on both history and math. Such a device would likely be around 10 to 15 kilotons, while the Castle Bravo test alone was 15,000 KT.

[TZ]

46. BTW, I know a few people in physics too.

Surprisingly I have not heard any of them suggest this. You know that nuclear plants are shielded for a reason right? :crazy:

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

43. I don't think that you understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. nt

[TZ]

45. LOL. I think my biotech employer would disagree with you on that.

I think you have to understand science to be a scientist ya know...What I do know is that the Russians aren't known to have very good record on cleaning up environmental disasters. And I say it again. Theoretical science and real world science are two totally different things.

[KillCapitalism]

7. From what I understand it would only take one.

Nuclear tests have been conducted underwater without a "holocaust" occuring. What if they can't fix this leak anytime soon & worst case scenario it spews oil for years?

[hlthe2b]

9. Do you even know what occurred out in Johnson & Bikini atolls

as a consequence of our nuclear tests? Do YOU? Jesus Christ.

[KillCapitalism]

10. I know nothing of it.

I tried to google, but not much came up. If you have info on it, post up links & I'll read up on it.

How far & wide did the effects of the nuclear tests on the atolls go?

If this oil spill isn't contained in the near future, we can probably say Bye Bye to Australia's Great Barrier reef.

[Orrex]

12. Well, on the plus side...

The Great Barrier Reef was probably doomed even before the BP spew occurred.

[hlthe2b]

14. Are you serious? You know nothing of our history of nuclear testing

in the Pacific, for which we are STILL paying reparations to this day to the people of the Marshall Islands, Bikini Atoll and elsewhere? Yet, you are pushing for a nuclear bomb to be used in the Gulf? What, are you 12?

BTW, a simple google search of "Nuclear testing bikini atoll and Johnson Island" brings up over 5000 hits. yet, you couldn't find much?!!!!!

[ixion]

22. It's pretty well-documented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll

Releasing large amounts of radiation into the ecosystem does indeed screw things up.

[Orrex]

11. Easy there, fireball.

No need for such hostility. I believe that the OP's question was asked in good faith.

Incidentally, how many nukes were detonated @ Johnson & Bikini? One?

[hlthe2b]

15. Orrex

I was told by one very rude poster that I can not post on the issue because I know nothing (this from those who actually have demonstrated that THEY know nothing, but talk big time about dropping nukes). And, you say I have no right to be hostile? I don't think so.

[Confusious]

It probably wouldn't be a surface explosion

That would do nothing ( well, not nothing, lots of bad shit, but it would do nothing to stop the leak ). They would probably bury it close to the drill point and the explosion would fuse the rock, sealing the hole.

[underseasurveyor]

16. I'm not a nuclear scientist

Nor do I play one on TV ;-) but yes I do whole heartedly agree with you.

Have you followed some of these pro-nuke threads lately? Geezus as if we weren't killing the planet and ourselves fast enough already.

Truly boggles the mind:crazy:

[hlthe2b]

19. Yes...

I think what most unnerves me is that we seem to be bringing an entire cohort who do not appreciate what nuclear bombs can do--the irreversibility of using them. Seemingly know nothing about the half life of radiation and the incredible damage that can be wrought.

I remember the RW constantly harping on using nukes to bring about defeat of the Vietnamese and still maintain we should have used them. Again, saying the same after 911 and in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can chalk that all up to RW idiocy and bluster, but when our own start de-emphasizing the dangers of nuclear bombs and making such suggestions, knowing nothing of the history.. Well, as per my sigline, this just slays me.

[dbmk]

30. Nuclear holocaust would seem to be a highly subjective guess

There seem to be some support for the idea among scientists - that DO know what they are talking about.
Without overlooking that it is not without its own drawbacks and not a 100% sure solution that could not worsen the problem.

But it might be the equivalent of complaining that the cure for the plague gives you a sore throat.

A controlled explosion under 5000 ft of water and deep into the rock - to a decidedly overdimensioned surface explosions in 1945-1950 seems to me to be an overblown comparison. Without that meaning that a nuclear explosion is just dandy.

[hlthe2b]

33. ...

Good God. :eyes:

[dbmk]

35. Whats your solution?

If the alternative to detonating a nuke down there is worse than detonating a nuke down there - you would still say no, because nukes are bad?

Or would your decision just be "..."?

I don't think anyone thinks detonating a nuke is a good idea. I am not advocating that they should try. I would not presume to advocate anything in this regard.

But if the right people says that it is the least of the available evils, then I'd be forced to accept that.
Even if I know full well what happened at the Bikini atoll - whatever relevance that has.

[backscatter712]

17. The Gulf's ecologically damaged enough without making it radioactive.

Realistically, in order to do it right, you have to place the nuke right. In other words, you have to have the oil drillers bore a hole about a thousand feet down, and send the warhead down the hole, deep underground.

And if you're going to go to all that trouble to make sure the nuke does its job correctly, you realize that you can drill, and do other tactics that work just as well without requiring messy, politically volatile things like nuclear bombs. You can drill close to the original hole and use conventional explosives to collapse the well, or you can intersect the original hole with a relief well, shoot drilling mud and concrete down into it to plug the gusher, and do just as good a job without nukes.

[ashling]

18. Doesn't that run the risk of opening a larger hole for ALL

of the oil to come out at once? .....







not to mention ......











http://bp0.blogger.com/_v0fV15P7uQo/SBi44DOuLgI/AAAAAAAACC4/2DW-l5OSH-k/s400/crack+in+the+world+mend.JPG






or this

[Karenina]

25. Crack in the World 1965 Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtZ6Ixeqvs

[Strelnikov_]

38. Runs the risk of creating fractures which could leak

At that point " . . all the Kings Soldiers and all the Kings Men . . "

Drilling a relief well is the only proven way.

[Submariner]

20. If we don't mind killing every marine mammal within a hundred miles or so

of the blast. We will have dead whales and dolphins all over the Gulf from the blast concussion.

[Lochloosa]

21. There already dead.

[Scuba]

23. Sure, what could possibly go wrong?

[madokie]

24. my brain hurts

Lets just say its been boggled

[RC]

26. A nuclear blast runs the very real risk of fracturing the rock and turning the top

of the oil dome into a leaking sponge. Instead of a few leaks in one place, we'd have several square miles of leaks.

[newfie11]

27. that would sure solve the problem

:sarcasm:

[Poll_Blind]

34. +1 for that. n/t

PB

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. What the fuck?

Really?

Goes along perfectly with kerosene filled fire extinguishers.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Using a nuke didn't even kill the aliens in Independence Day, a non-fiction disaster movie.

What on earth would make you think it would stop an oil spill in real life?

This and the "let's nuke a hurricane" crowd. Ugh.

[dbmk]

36. The fact that it has been done before, maybe?

The idea is not sci-fi speculation.
Albeit I have a hard time trusting information stemming from Russia/the old USSR about what long term effects of it is.

[Bragi]

37. Dispersants work better

A nuke would be too telegenic. A well-covered nuke blast would cause more people to realize that there is no known way of doing ultra-deep-sea oil extraction that doesn't eventually end up with horrific environmental consequences.

Dispersants, on the other hand, are much more effective. They ensure that oil damage is harder to show graphically on TV, at least until the blobs of oil eventually hit shorelines.

Once that happens, the soap companies can then run ads showing how volunteers can use their products to clean up some of the more cute and cuddly marine wildlife they find that is devastated by the oil.

This way, dead wildlife can be portrayed as the inevitable result of there being insufficient numbers of volunteers.

Maybe BP can then hand out awards to towns and organizations that recruited the most volunteers, and run ads thanking them for "stepping up to the plate".

- B

[Flaxbee]

39. Because the Russians also have a much BETTER way of stopping the leak than

nukes.

But we'd have to invite a Russian sub into our territory; not sure if the powers-that-be can handle something so scary. :sarcasm:

[Codeine]

41. What way is that? nt