Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorgroundxero
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2010 edited
     (8273.1)
    I don't see this happening in the Gulf Coast, but it's interesting.

  1.  (8273.2)
    Only if they strap some BP executives to the bomb first.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2010
     (8273.3)
    If they did it, and it actually worked, Obama would be truly awesome. He nuked his Katrina.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsseloske
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2010
     (8273.4)
    I really doubt this is going to happen. The attempts to "stop the leaks" have actually been attempts to preserve the site for further use. Nuking the site will seriously compromise that goal.

    Also, consider the political climate surrounding nuclear weaponry. Using them, even to save the fucking ocean, is at odds with what has been this administration's primary international message.

    For the record, I support Obama, but this is absolute torture to see unfold. I'm horrified.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2010
     (8273.5)
    I really doubt this is going to happen. The attempts to "stop the leaks" have actually been attempts to preserve the site for further use. Nuking the site will seriously compromise that goal.


    Which is part of the problem. The efforts to stop the leak seem most focused on making sure that oil can be pulled out of the site without re-developing it. The oil is seen as far more important than the people and the environment. Which, to BP, it is. Fuck BP, this thing needs to be stopped and stopped now.
  2.  (8273.6)
    It seems to me that BP is just dicking around and arguing over what to do with the gvt while the spill gets worse and worse.

    I'm afraid what it'll do to the economy when the fisheries and whatnot and tourism gets splattered over there; and I don't think it's fearmongering.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMG
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2010
     (8273.7)
    For some reason this plan reminded me of this image.



    Russian nuclear science was always, shall we say not "human centric". "ike the stupid experiments they were up to at Chernobyl, or how they had people going up on the roof of the exploded reactor in little more than plain clothes grabbing pieces of REACTOR CORE. I'd imagine there might be some unspoken drawbacks to letting off a nuke at the bottom of the ocean.

    Also, the fact the creepy Russian scientist in the video compared the process to "cutting off the oxygen to a human being" is not inspiring my confidence.
  3.  (8273.8)
    Any idea if the tankers and boats sucking it up plan would help at all? Sounds a bit safer than nuking.
  4.  (8273.9)

    "Gotta nuke something."
  5.  (8273.10)
    Can't for the life of me locate it, but I read something recently that suggested nuking the well could set off a chain reaction resulting in a Yellowstone-super-volcano-extinction-level-event type situation. Since I can't track down the source I can't be sure if this is a serious risk, or just hyperbolic fear mongering.
  6.  (8273.11)
    Yeah, that's pretty much one of the possibly outcomes I heard. And I've got no idea where the article got to either. Still, it does resonate with the part of me that thinks nuking it would just be too easy/awesome.
    • CommentAuthorColby
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2010
     (8273.12)
    Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. Let's fix a ecological disaster with a bigger ecological disaster. I love America.

    Speaking of which, did anyone ever invent those bacteria that could eat oil?
    • CommentAuthorSBarrett
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
     (8273.13)
    As long as we do it from orbit.

    It's the only way to be sure...

    What? Someone had to say it!
    • CommentAuthorJarreddo
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010 edited
     (8273.14)
    Seeing as I'm in New Orleans right now, I would like to vote against this plan.

    On the other hand, it has a great EXTREME vibe to it, like Transmet meets Captain Planet or something. Doing something over the top and ridiculous is just so appealing to me. For example, my solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict? Hand Jerusalem over to the BUDDHISTS. Should be fun.
  7.  (8273.15)
    I also read somewhere (it might have been here on Whitechapel so forgive me if I'm being redundant) about a conspiracy theory that the rig was blown up by a miniature, North Korean suicide submarine deployed from a Cuban fishing boat, with the express purpose of forcing the US to deploy a nuke so as to disrupt the disarmament talks. So not only would a nuke crack open the sea floor to release Cthulhu (or something), it would also help COMMUNISM!
    •  
      CommentAuthorArtenshiur
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2010
     (8273.16)
    Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. Let's fix a ecological disaster with a bigger ecological disaster. I love America.


    What makes you think that a tactical nuclear device exploded at a depth of 5000 feet would be worse ecologically than several million barrels of oil spilling into the gulf? Nukes are powerful, but they are not automatically worse than everything.

    I'm not saying it's a great idea, because I'm not qualified to evaluate that sort of thing. There are a lot of factors to be considered. But, for example, if the density change caused by a massive influx of oil cut off the gulf stream currents, causing a precipitous drop in temperature in the northern hemisphere, I'd consider that a pretty major disaster. Whereas it's entirely possible that a nuke set off at the bottom of the gulf would cause a moderately-sized plop on the surface, an increase in the ambient radiation levels which is fractional in comparison to what occurred due to testing in the twentieth century, and a dead zone that already existed to some degree due to increased carbon acidity in the gulf.

    Again, I don't know. But I wouldn't brush it off that easily.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgroundxero
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2010 edited
     (8273.17)
    Edited to insert 'Water World' joke.

    Apparently Kevin Costner has the answer to cleaning the water. (Insert 'Water World' joke here.)

    )

    Here's a video of him testing the prototype.

  8.  (8273.18)
    Up here in Minnesota, we have a peat bog product that bonds with oil and basically renders it inert. And it can get reabsorbed into the earth, or burned for fuel. Al Franken is trying to get the attention of those in charge of the cleanups to get 'em contracts as they already have enough to take care of the oil.

    Here's a link:

    http://wcco.com/specialreports/local.company.oil.2.1699397.html
    •  
      CommentAuthorJay Kay
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2010
     (8273.19)
    I'm reminded of the general in Mars Attacks, who's contribution to every problem was to "nuke 'em."

    "WE'VE GOTTA NUKE 'EM AND WE GOTTA NUKE 'EM NOW!"

    And who knew there was a chance that Kevin Costner might actually contribute something to the world?
  9.  (8273.20)
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/11/11558/1890
    Apparently the booming isn't working because...they're doing it wrong.
    *headdesk*

    and a National Geographic Article on the Oil Spill;
    "Dead Zone in the Making"

    ..to me this does not look good. Not at all :(

    and apparently there were warning signs before the spill.