Thread: Two Deepwater Horizon Developments To Expect In The Coming Days

Next, the so-called "nuclear option" is about to get a lot of attention. In this case, of course, nuclear option is not a euphemism. It's the real idea that the best way to kill this thing is to stick a small nuke in there and bury the well under rubble. Supposedly it's been done in Russia, and by the middle of the coming week, it will be all over cable news, as pundits press The White House hard on whether it's being considered and why not.

Right now, it is mostly speculation, and of course, the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are having a field day with their claim that the Obama administration is about to nuke the Gulf oil spill. As far back as 3 weeks ago there has been speculation, and also claims that Obama sent nuclear scientists to Houston to study the feasibility of using a nuke. There was also an article in the Telegraph which repeated these claims.

This is not a new idea. The Russians have used small nuclear weapons to plug leaks before. Their most famous use was to stop a natural gas leak that had burned out of control for more than 3 years. It worked.

YouTube - Nuclear Blast To Stop Oil Leak In Gulf - It's Worked Before!

Me? I don't see a problem with it. After all, there were 27 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll, and today it is a tourist destination. Yes, there will be a problem with radiation, but that deep down, not much will come to the surface. Let me give you an analogy. When a person has cancer, he or she is given chemotherapy. That is, the person is given poison, which hopefully kills the cancer cells before doing much damage to the person. It is the same here. Sure, radiation is not a good thing, but compared to an oil leak which otherwise might be equal to many Exxon Valdez events, it is not such a bad thing in this case.

Whether or not this "nuclear option" is truly being considered by the Obama administration, I say consider it. It might not end up being the ultimate solution to the Gulf spill, but it should at least be on the table.

Article is here.

There's no chance of that happening

No thanks, i,m not into three headed shrimp.

I was actually watching Rachael Maddow (who I typically dislike) but she did have an interesting segment on the oil spill. It is posted below:



It was pretty interesting what the ultimate solution was, perhaps we ought to give that a shot again?

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

There's no chance of that happening

No chance of what happening?

A nuclear device to stop the leak?

Acceptance by the American Electorate of a nuclear device to stop the leak?

I rather imagine that if all other methods fail, then the nuclear option will have to be revisited.

Simply spouting rhetoric that BP is to blame is not going to plug this leak.

BP have abandoned the so called 'Top Kill' method, while still using the ridiculous method of shooting golf ball into the BOP (wonder if someone is picking up the ones that Obama loses in the rough, he is not that good a player)

Containment is all very well even assuming they could ever get it to work, but that idea vanishes as soon as a Hurricane roars into the Gulf.

Nuclear will be very much on the table.

Originally Posted by jujuman13

No chance of what happening?

A nuclear device to stop the leak?

Acceptance by the American Electorate of a nuclear device to stop the leak?

I rather imagine that if all other methods fail, then the nuclear option will have to be revisited.

Simply spouting rhetoric that BP is to blame is not going to plug this leak.

BP have abandoned the so called 'Top Kill' method, while still using the ridiculous method of shooting golf ball into the BOP (wonder if someone is picking up the ones that Obama loses in the rough, he is not that good a player)

Containment is all very well even assuming they could ever get it to work, but that idea vanishes as soon as a Hurricane roars into the Gulf.

Nuclear will be very much on the table.

The relief well is the last resort option. Nuclear isn't just off the table - it's not even in the room. Even if we were going to bomb the well to close it, we would use conventional explosives. If we nuked the well we'd be tossing out every nuclear treaty we've signed since the fall of the USSR.

Originally Posted by danarhea

Right now, it is mostly speculation, and of course, the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are having a field day with their claim that the Obama administration is about to nuke the Gulf oil spill. As far back as 3 weeks ago there has been speculation, and also claims that Obama sent nuclear scientists to Houston to study the feasibility of using a nuke. There was also an article in the Telegraph which repeated these claims.

This is not a new idea. The Russians have used small nuclear weapons to plug leaks before. Their most famous use was to stop a natural gas leak that had burned out of control for more than 3 years. It worked.

YouTube - Nuclear Blast To Stop Oil Leak In Gulf - It's Worked Before!

Me? I don't see a problem with it. After all, there were 27 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll, and today it is a tourist destination. Yes, there will be a problem with radiation, but that deep down, not much will come to the surface. Let me give you an analogy. When a person has cancer, he or she is given chemotherapy. That is, the person is given poison, which hopefully kills the cancer cells before doing much damage to the person. It is the same here. Sure, radiation is not a good thing, but compared to an oil leak which otherwise might be equal to many Exxon Valdez events, it is not such a bad thing in this case.

Whether or not this "nuclear option" is truly being considered by the Obama administration, I say consider it. It might not end up being the ultimate solution to the Gulf spill, but it should at least be on the table.

Article is here.

Well, as long as the half-life of any radiation is very short, seconds or minutes, maybe...

But what guarantee of its success?

This is just trial and error with this mess, and I don't think this method would be approved without, say, a 99% or better chance it would work.

If this were to happen, which I doubt, I'd like to drive to the coast to see it. Probably wouldn't be much to see, though, since the event would be a mile deep in water.

Originally Posted by tryreading

Well, as long as the half-life of any radiation is very short, seconds or minutes, maybe...

But what guarantee of its success?

This is just trial and error with this mess, and I don't think this method would be approved without, say, a 99% or better chance it would work.

If this were to happen, which I doubt, I'd like to drive to the coast to see it. Probably wouldn't be much to see, though, since the event would be a mile deep in water.

I believe it would work quite well. Once you get to the bottom of the Gulf, it is another 5 miles down to the reservoir of oil from which the leak is coming. A small nuclear device would effectively seal that hole for good. The Russians have done it, and with success. The only problem will be the radiation, but the majority of it will stay at the bottom, and the rest will be dispersed in the Gulf waters, essentially diluted. There will be some radiation at the surface, but nothing lethal. Still, that could present problems, but compared to what? The ongoing spill, which is enormous?

And what about a neutron bomb?

Originally Posted by danarhea

Right now, it is mostly speculation, and of course, the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are having a field day with their claim that the Obama administration is about to nuke the Gulf oil spill. As far back as 3 weeks ago there has been speculation, and also claims that Obama sent nuclear scientists to Houston to study the feasibility of using a nuke. There was also an article in the Telegraph which repeated these claims.

This is not a new idea. The Russians have used small nuclear weapons to plug leaks before. Their most famous use was to stop a natural gas leak that had burned out of control for more than 3 years. It worked.

YouTube - Nuclear Blast To Stop Oil Leak In Gulf - It's Worked Before!

Me? I don't see a problem with it. After all, there were 27 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll, and today it is a tourist destination. Yes, there will be a problem with radiation, but that deep down, not much will come to the surface. Let me give you an analogy. When a person has cancer, he or she is given chemotherapy. That is, the person is given poison, which hopefully kills the cancer cells before doing much damage to the person. It is the same here. Sure, radiation is not a good thing, but compared to an oil leak which otherwise might be equal to many Exxon Valdez events, it is not such a bad thing in this case.

Whether or not this "nuclear option" is truly being considered by the Obama administration, I say consider it. It might not end up being the ultimate solution to the Gulf spill, but it should at least be on the table.

Article is here.

Get back to me in 3 years and we'll talk.

This could be the best idea on earth, but there's no way in hell they're going to allow "Obama nukes oil spill" to become a headline.