Barack Obama sends nuclear experts to tackle BP

Barack Obama sends nuclear experts to tackle BP

www.telegraph.co.uk

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Hayward said the five-hour meeting involved a "very deep dive" into the situation at hand, with "lots of nuclear physicists and all sorts of people coming up with some quite good ideas actually."

Pressed further about the meeting, he said they had "come up with one good idea" but declined to elaborate.

The five include 82-year-old Richard Garwin, who designed the first hydrogen bomb, and Tom Hunter, head of the US Department of Energy's Sandia National Labs.

In addition, Mr Chu has already despatched Marcia McNutt, the head of the US

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now, what on earth are nuclear experts doing on an oil spill, other than they are thinking about blowing up the well head.

Not only will we have oil, and chemical dispersants, but now radiation?

I think we are most definitely headed toward a global catastrophe.

Blow a hole in the ocean, that'll fix it. Man, these people are insane.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Apparently it is a proven method:

Nukes, a simple proven method to stop oil leaks

A leading Russian daily has come up with another option-nuke the spill. Though it sounds more like fiction and somewhat outlandish, the fact is that Soviet Russia had used controlled nuclear explosions to contain oil spills, on at least five different occasions.

The science is to drill a hole near the leak, set off the explosion and then seal off the leak-used in the soviet for an oil spill in the desert. If it is rocky surface the explosion would shift the rock which then squeezes the funnel of the well. The first underground nuclear explosion was done in Urt-Bulak in 1966 to control burning gas wells. The success ratio is quite high with only one of them failing to prevent a spill in Kharkov region in 1972.

There is an analogy between using nukes to stop the oil leak and using Chemotherapy on a cancer patient. Chemo nearly kills the patient in order to kill all cancerous cells. Yet it is the best known way to stop cancer. The same goes with using nukes underwater. Like chemo it is drastic yet has a 80% success rate, better than anything else.

Some analysts are against the use of nuclear explosions on fear of the effects on the environment. But the world has already done underwater testing of nuclear devices and if there was a huge environmental disaster as a result of it, we'd have known by now. Indeed, Commandant Cousteau, renowned biologist led numerous dives following French underwater nuclear explosions in the Mururoa atoll and noted very little impact on sea life.

Using nukes to stop the leak is the most ecological alternative. Stopping the leak before too much oil leak is the key, speed is of the essence. Nukes would allow this to be resolved in a matter of days. This would save thousands of miles of shoreline, millions of animals by not allowing this toxic sludge to contaminate the shore.

One of the main issues with using nukes is public opinion. Even though it's the most ecological alternative, nukes have a huge public stigma hard to overcome, mostly due to ignorance. Nuclear bombs are not intended to be used for peaceful, ecological purposes and educating the public on this possibility is an uphill battle.

This technology was used by the Russians, the USA's sworn enemy at the peak of the cold war. Never mind the relatively high success rate of 80%, no politician in his right mind would sell a Russian solution to the public.
Of course, BP does not have nukes. The US military does, of which the Army Corps of Engineers would probably have to design a plan to use them on the leak. The United States has about 5,113 nuclear war heads, as revealed by Pentagon according to the Strategic Arms Reduction purpose. So, why not use them for peaceful purpose for once?

oil-price.net...

reply to post by Soular System



Well from what I heard the gulf actually leaks oil naturally, I tried to find that source but couldn't,

So with that in mind, an explosion might not be a good plan.

reply to post by Soular System


Three things we can nuke now, the banks, the volcano, and the oil spill..

F me, nukes are actually useful, just when America signed the deal to reduce its nuclear war heads.

I read a similar article about a nuclear option for the Gulf oil leak on Viewzone.com
It's a great site.
Check it out.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Lacenaire]

Ahhh, gotta love the smell of depleted uranium in your fish.

What happens if it makes the leak worse, then what?

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Soular System]

Originally posted by chorizo4
reply to post by Reign02

 

Originally posted by Reign02
Why would they use a nuke?? That would do more harm than good..... and blasting it?? where are you getting this from....

I don't know where I get it from. Mostly I just watch the SciFi channel for my reality fix. I guess I have been watching it too much.

Can they fix the oil spill without a nuke?

In an article published in the September issue of Geology, Gregory Ryskin, associate professor of chemical engineering, suggests that huge combustible clouds produced by methane gas trapped in stagnant bodies of water and suddenly released could have killed off the majority of marine life and land animals and plants at the end of the Permian era -- long before dinosaurs lived and died.

The mechanism also might explain other extinctions and climate perturbations (ice ages) and even the Biblical flood, as well as be the cause of future catastrophes.

Ryskin calculated that some 10,000 gigatons of dissolved methane could have accumulated in water near the ocean floor under high pressure. If released quickly, perhaps triggered by an earthquake, the resulting cloud of methane would have an explosive force about 10,000 times greater than the world's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. The huge conflagrations plus flooding and overturned oceans would cause the extinctions. (Approximately 95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were lost.)

"That amount of energy is absolutely staggering," said Ryskin. "As soon as one accepts this mechanism, it becomes clear that if it happened once it could happen again. I have little doubt there will be another methane-driven eruption -- though not on the same scale as 251 million years ago -- unless humans intervene."

With that in mind, according to this article,

The plumes are depleting the oxygen dissolved in the gulf, worrying scientists, who fear that the oxygen level could eventually fall so low as to kill off much of the sea life near the plumes.

Dr. Joye said the oxygen had already dropped 30 percent near some of the plumes in the month that the broken oil well had been flowing. “If you keep those kinds of rates up, you could draw the oxygen down to very low levels that are dangerous to animals in a couple of months,” she said Saturday. “That is alarming.”

www.nytimes.com...

Now after using Nukes that might make the problem worse and could have the same impact as a asteroid,

BTW Puerto Rico had an earthquake today.

Yep...be prepared to start hearing about an underwater nuclear explosion to fix the problem. I hope it works, because if it doesn't it will really be a mess down there.

Mercury-flavored blackened seafood...now with added uranium! MmmMmm Good!

Hm. I seem to remember commenting on another thread about these morons deciding to use nukes....it looks like it's coming ever closer, and I may just be correct about my assumptions/predictions.

Well, there goes the neighborhood for the next 10,000 years.


Can anybody say "KABOOM!"


Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

Remember when they tried to put the "containment dome" over the leak, an BP came out an said the hydrates are causing the dome to float up, because it's blocking the oil.

Well, these guys have the technology to anchor drilling rigs to the ocean floor, but they can't anchor down the "containment dome", and let the hydrates plug up the leak?

The truth is, they don't want it stopped, so they can entertain insane options like nuclear weapons and soon there will be nanotech introduced, as they have been hinting all along.

I sense something stupid this way comes...

Time to consider alternative living arrangements, I think.

I'm kind of unsure what the connect is. Would the nuke somehow cause the release of the methane? Or would is detonate it, creating a disaster as bad as the one that killed off the dinosaurs? It sounds like we're f**ked either way though...

Originally posted by warpcrafter
I'm kind of unsure what the connect is. Would the nuke somehow cause the release of the methane? Or would is detonate it, creating a disaster as bad as the one that killed off the dinosaurs? It sounds like we're f**ked either way though...

Kinda makes me wonder.

Originally posted by truthseeker1984Well, there goes the neighborhood for the next 10,000 years.

What america needs is the biggest hydrogen bomb they have, will it work, who knows.

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by truthseeker1984Well, there goes the neighborhood for the next 10,000 years.

What america needs is the biggest hydrogen bomb they have, will it work, who knows.

Well, we're kinda farked either way, so why not go out with a bang?


Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

I don't see how we can make any kind of judgment about this unless of course, we're nuclear experts or geologists or something... How can you pooh-pooh on an idea that you don't even understand?

I'm not saying this is the right way to go about it, but at least I admit that I don't have a clue how to fix this disaster. And if experts in the field think that somehow a nuclear 'something' might fix it, then I'm going to have to know more about it before I approve OR disapprove.

Having scientists look for a solution seems the most practical and effective next step to me... It's not like they're getting ready to set off a nuke and then see what happens.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Oddly enough they are asking for people to come forward with ideas,

No, we don't have any idea, neither do they.

BTW I think my meatloaf recipe might work, if everyone in America donates one of my meatloafs, yup that outta do the trick.


[edit on 113131p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


History is filled with examples of desperate situations leading to desperate solutions with disastrous consequences.

Presumably, BP and the government's scientific experts were on hand before the disaster.

I'd feel MUCH better if BP and the government were completely forthcoming with all of the images, video and data they have available.

At this point, nearly all of it has been withheld.

Why?

I hate to make a bad joke, but so far, the only thing BP has managed to "cap" is the flow of information.

:shk:

I'll trust proposed solutions, when they have been more appropriately vetted by more scientists with access to all of the data.


[edit on 16-5-2010 by loam]