Skip to comments.Nuke the BP oil spill & environazis that get in the way, too much at stake
Posted on 05/21/2010 8:13:04 PM PDT by steve0
click here to read article
Seriously, this would be a stupid well to try to “seal by nuke.” Too close to land.
Why a zot? This is a serious topic, and it’s not too close to land. A mile of water does a lot to limit the range of damage, and a relatively small nuke would do the job.
The word “nuke” or “nuclear” scares people, though.
Really? Why? No fallout from a sub-seabed nuclear explosion. No fault lines to worry about. Let's stop being chickensh#ts about this and do what's right.
“Seriously, this would be a stupid well to try to seal by nuke. Too close to land.”
How is it too close to land? How many nuclear weapons have we exploded in the west? There have been hundreds....
Thank you!!. The reader makes my point we need to get away from the leftist propaganda that all nuclear technology is dangerous, polluting, toxic etc. We would feed millions more and save billions in dollars if we would only use Food Irradiation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation
# 1970 Establishment of the International Food Irradiation Project (IFIP), head quarters at the Federal Research Centre for Food Preservation, Karlsruhe, Germany
# 1980 FAO/IAEA/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Irradiation recommends the clearance generally up to 10 kGy “overall average dose”
# 1981/1983 End of IFIP after reaching its goals
# 1983 Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Irradiated Foods: any food at a maximum “overall average dose” of 10 kGy
# 1984 International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI) becomes the successor of IFIP
# 1997 FAO/IAEA/WHO Joint Study Group on High-Dose Irradiation recommends to lift any upper dose limit
# 2003 Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Irradiated Foods: no longer any upper dose limit
# 2004 ICGFI ends
Just because the stuff that would otherwise be fallout doesn’t go into the air doesn’t mean it doesn’t go somewhere it is not particularly helpful. Also does the word tsunami mean anything to you?
Really, the best thing to do with the well would be to salvage it, even if another oilco has to do it because BP is so incompetent. However, the Bummer admin has nixed measures, such as barriers or oil dispersants (helps it biodegrade) that BP has suggested. It is just a fuster cluck.
Irradiating food and exploding a nuke underwater are vastly different enterprises.
This is in no way a serious topic for those of us old enough to remember real spills.
The tin foil hat crowd grows tiresome in short order.
Yes, but do both endeavors rely on the use of proven nuclear technology.
Exploding a nuke on Bikini Atoll is not the same as doing it within 50 miles of populated mainland.
Oh, and the Rooskies sealed gas wells, not oil wells.
I like how your so scientific and all dismissing it out of hand in a knee jerk fashion. All options must be on the table. This is proven technology. See: A first test in the fall of 1966 proved successful in sealing up a well in southern Uzbekistan, and so the Russians used nukes four more times for capping runaway wells.
“The second ‘success’ gave Soviet scientists great confidence in the use of this new technique for rapidly and effectively controlling ran away gas and oil wells,” according to a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report on the Soviet Union’s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.
A last attempt took place in 1981, but failed perhaps because of poor positioning, according to a U.S. Department of Energy report.” Thank you for proving my point about the anti-nuclear hysteria the left has spread to Americans. I suppose your against food irradiation?
It will be a catastrophic miscalculation.
For one thing, it will release Godzilla.
And for another, it won't kill enough hippies.
Hippies? In Louisiana?
Nice, who should be zotted now? You insult all Freepers with your unscientific broad generalizations and stereotypes.
Cajun’s FReep-age is enough to be your grandpa. And I could be your daddy.
You lost any claim to science whatsoever when you started portraying this comparatively small well leak as a catastrophic disaster meriting apocalyptic solutions.
Are you an unemloyed anthropomorphic global warmist looking for a new gig?
Did you sell Y2K survival kits?