Oil Spill

[pamagain]

The nuke idea really isn't that bad of one. 

yeah.......no consequences or repercussions there............what about the fault line goin thru there? oh hell f-it it's just louisiana,texas,mississippi,alabama,florida and part of mexico that might get damaged....who the hell cares.......go for it.

[Varmit]

A Tactical nuke won't do anything to damage the fault line.  We're not talking about a nuclear warhead MinuteMan missle here. 

[pamagain]

   Nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

[Wilma]

I have to admit that I am fairly ignorant about nuclear bombs or whatever it is that has been suggested.  I will admit that I am very nervous about the idea.

Varmit, since you seem to think that it might not be as bad as some of us feel it would be, would you explain what you know about it.  I would welcome anything that would ease my mind.

[pamagain]

His face wracked by age and his voice rasping after decades of chain-smoking coarse tobacco, former nuclear power minister and veteran Soviet physicist Viktor Mikhailov knows just how to fix BP's oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

"A nuclear explosion over the leak," he said, nonchalantly puffing a cigarette as he sat in a conference room at the Institute of Strategic Stability, where he is a director.

"I don't know what BP is waiting for. They are wasting their time. Only about 10 kilotons of nuclear explosion capacity and the problem is solved," he said.

And it's not just Soviet scientists. Milo Nordyke, one of the masterminds behind U.S. research into peaceful nuclear energy in the 1960s and 70s said a nuclear explosion is a logical last-resort solution for BP and the government. Matthew Simmons, a former energy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush and the founder of energy investment-banking firm Simmons & Company International, is another calling for the nuclear option.

Nordyke too believes that the nuclear option should be on the table. After seeing nine U.S. nuclear explosions and standing behind the control board of one, he estimates that a nuclear bomb would have roughly an 80 percent to 90 percent chance of successfully blocking the oil. According to his estimates, it would have to be an explosion of about 30 kilotons, equivalent to roughly two Hiroshima bombs or three times as big as Mikhailov's estimate. The explosion would also need to remain at least 5 kilometers away from other offshore wells in the area.

The bomb, Nordyke said, would be dropped in a secondary well about 20 meters away from the leaking shaft. There it would create a large cavity filled with gas. The gas would melt the surrounding rock, crush it and press it into the leaking well to close it shut.

Although the BP well is hundreds of meters deeper than those closed in the Soviet Union, Nordyke said the extra depth shouldn't make a difference. He also said that so far below the ground, not much difference exists in onshore or underwater explosions — even though explosions have never been tried.

Nordyke said fears that radiation could escape after the explosion are unfounded. The hole would be about 20 centimeters in diameter and, despite the shockwave, the radiation should remain captured. Even in the case of radiation escape, he said, its dispersed effect would be less than that of floating oil patches

But don't expect an explosion under the Gulf of Mexico anytime soon. Even a conventional blast could backfire and cause more problems. There is a chance that any blast could fracture the seabed and cause an underground blowout, said Andy Radford, petroleum engineer and American Petroleum Institute senior policy adviser on offshore issues.

The U.S. Department of Energy has no plans to use explosives "due to the obvious risks involved," said a department spokeswoman.

[Varmit]

Wilma, the big scare is that a nuke would damage the fault line.  That is not really logical when you think about the pressure needed to alter the fault line.  The pressure from the tectonic plates is millions of times greater than a small nuke would be.  When people talk of nuclear bombs most people think of types of bombs we would use in a nuclear missle strike.  The fact is that there are numerous type of nuclear bombs and weapons.  Hell, a lot of the torpedoes our subs use are basically baby nukes, yet we don't use these to destroy cities. 

[Catwoman]

Well, if the fault line isn't a worry, then would the half life of the radiation let loose by such an instrument qualify as a concern?  And...Given the oceanic currents that encircle the US/Mexico, how would that radiation be dispersed?  Does that qualify as a concern?  There is more to look at here than just the fault line.

[srkruzich]

Well, if the fault line isn't a worry, then would the half life of the radiation let loose by such an instrument qualify as a concern?  And...Given the oceanic currents that encircle the US/Mexico, how would that radiation be dispersed?  Does that qualify as a concern?  There is more to look at here than just the fault line.

Water is the best shield available for shielding from radiation.    Just look at how the clouds and atmosphere shield us from radiation from the sun.

When they shut down nuclear reactors permanantly, they flood the reactor core with water to seal it. 

[Varmit]

Not only are the shielding properties of water very good, but the amount of radiation released from such a small nuke is not that much.  Not only that but it wuld be dispersed over such a wide area that it would have little to no impact.

[Wilma]

Sorry, but none of the above has eased my mind a bit.