Nuke the oil spill?

little_ey

little_ey

Member
Some scientists have come up with an interesting idea for closing the gaping hole in the ocean floor that is leaking thousands of gallons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico... Detonating a nuclear weapon underneath the ocean floor.

(my linking ability is not working, sorry)
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/18/nuking_the_gulf_spill

Admittedly these are scientists, not politicians, so the political ramifications are not considered in this proposal, nor are the other potential environmental effects of such a plan.

However, considering that the safest way to contain nuclear material is in glass, and the temperature of a nuclear explosion would surely heat the sand on the ocean floor to class, it isn't that preposterous of an idea as it initially sounds.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-16/nuke-the-oil-spill/
http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

Though still probably very unrealistic.

 
that would turn the water radioactive..... right next to som big ole continents

Whats there not to like?
 
it is absolutely that preposterous. why would anybody think that nuclear radiation would be better to have kickin' around than oil? that's the most ridiculous idea i've ever heard.
 
it was some russian scientists who first proposed it, and apparently they've successfully done it 5 times already. And that was in the 60s, when nukes were still....risky at best.

it was also proven back in the 50s/60s that underwater nuclear explosions are actually fairly safe, and contained, and don't have nearly the effect on undersea life that you would assume. For whatever reason (i'm not a scientist) nukes are just safer underwater.

I say try a few more ideas if possible, but if not, go for it. The oil spill could potentially contaminate hundreds of miles of shoreline and kill who knows how many animals, so why not try something to stop it?
 
people just assume that since it's a nuke, it's going to be just like the pictures/videos we've all seen of various tests.
 
nuke-the-whales.jpg
 
cause it could mess up enviromental shit duhhh, and the majority of us can't ski cause winter is over.
 
It actually is a credible idea, if you were to do a little research you would see that. Also, the sexist comments are not funny they only reiterates how unintelligent and close minded you are.
 
wow so many ignorant posts in this thread. not that anyone can be sure yet that it will work perfectly, but to me, the idea of nuking the oil spill makes some sense if you think about it. some current estimates say that the spill has been 19 times larger than what they were originally considering to be a worst case scenario. 19 times worse than the predicted worst case scenario, guys. as it stands, the gulf of mexico is a shiny oil sheen that can be easily seen from space. do you understand exactly how devastating it is to the ecosystem? the reason there is so much oil in that area is because, throughout history, that's where the most marine life has resided. there is also so much at stake with the economy in terms of fishing. take shrimp for example, they're filter feeders who live in incomprehensible numbers in that area. not to mention the steady decrease of the world's oil reserves, which will fuck us up in terms of fueling our cars. humans are surprisingly clueless as to what's going on with the ecosystem because they've never had to deal with something at this scale, and imagine what could happen if we let it continue. yeah, sure, a nuke sounds like it could be an insane and counter-intuitive option, but engineers believe it will be much more controlled a mile underwater with immense pressure to prevent total destruction, and just enough mud and debris could result to cover up the gaping hole from which oil is gushing in immeasurable quantities right as we speak.
 
don't read it, it's not like the oil spill matters at all. LOL. sorry, did i make this one too long for you too?
 
that would end the world i have no doubt in my mind if civilization goes through with this plan the world will end
 
well there'd be nothing to see. it would be quite deep, and probably dark. I bet you'd see a little flash, then a lot of bubbles.

people just need to realize that nuke does not = mushroom cloud, green cloud of radiation, and death. You know how they've stopped fires on oil derricks and rigs before? They blow it up. Sounds stupid, but works. Using explosions and such can be helpful.
 
you could reference the scene in There Will Be Blood, people understand pop culture references better than science these days.
 
There still will be some radiation and radioactive bi-products released. And as someone said above, the risks are big having the oil there because of so much industry with regards to ocean life. Well, detonate the bomb, some radioactive particles get released, and then the whole gulf is contaminated. I'm not concerned at all about it causing a chernobyl-esk problem to humans, but people, jobs, wildlife, and ecosystems can be indirectly harmed by this. There are plenty of other options that are more feasible than this.

 
Using regular explosives, however, could work. I don't doubt that. Using a nuclear device would not be smart. It would be incredibly difficult to contain the nuclear explosion a mile underwater, it's not the same case as the one in the soviet union where workers could just access the hole the bomb was inserted too. In this case, the hole cannot be sealed well enough to reduce the risk of nuclear contaminants coming in contact with other organisms so that it would be a viable option.
 
its not as ridiculous as most of there other ideas

such as "put a box on it", "Put another box on it", "Put a tube in it"

why not just nuke the shit
 
I was going to say that regular explosives should be used. There are some MASSIVE bombs that will level huge amounts of land if dropped and be seen for miles (can't remember the exact name of the one I'm thinking of). Why don't they just used a modified version of that? No radiation, and they still get a shit ton of debris to fill the hole.
 
the only thing you have to be careful of when using explosives (which is probably why they wont use them at all) is sparking a fire and setting the well on fire. It can happen, and that would suck. It's all calculated versus necessary risk.
 
I like the idea, if you get a small nuclear device, in the single digit kiloton range, then it would definately be possible without all of the huge radioactive shit. Sure a small area will be contaminated but only the immediate blast zone. The amount of radiation produced would easily get diluted into the ocean and be much less harmful than any of the oil would.

I say do it. 99% of people bashing the idea thinks a giant city leveling nuke would be used which isnt the case at all.
 
you know nothing about the nuclear regulations in the US or anything about radioactive materials.
 
hahahaha +k for making me laugh.
I love when summer hits and all the kids on newschoolers discuss major life issues so passionately.

With tobacco entering skiing, north korea vs south korea vs team amerikah, and artificial life....the world is ending very very soonly.
 
theres going to be some of the biggest and scariest effin shark ever if this goes through
 
Russia just wants an excuse to detonate a nuke near the US. Then they'll write it down as history that they nuked us. /joking so people don't call me out for thinking this is true, although i might be in part.
 
woah guys, hold up. this could be a great thing for our community. let me explain with a brief timeline:

1. Oil spill in the middle of the ocean2. Nuke the shit out of it3. Fuck up the environment4. Send the world into a Nuclear winter5. Ski all year round6. ??????7. Profit
 
how so? its deep as fuck under water wayyyyyy off the coast. its not like theyre going to accidentally blow up the gulf coast or anything.
 
It is a smart idea, admittedly. Creative. Nuclear tests during the cold war were almost exclusively done underwater in the Pacific Ocean with minimal effects on marine life.

But... this is the Atlantic. 50 miles offshore, at most. Close to the Loop Current. Warmer water. More tropical. More diverse aquatic life at risk. Fishing grounds already. And there's a lot of oil still in the deep-seabed reservoir.

So while I applaud the idea and would have considered it a viable alternative if it had happened at least 500 miles offshore in the Pacific Ocean, it's just not an option here. Too many risks to the environment and the Gulf Coast's economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top