Russia proposes nuke solution to slick
 

Felt this deserved a thread of its own, since the original BP thread was talking about the problem rather than a solution.

About the BP oil spill; a russian newspaper was published with an article suggesting a solution. From what I read, I think how this works is they blow a nuke underwater next to the oil spill site. The hundreds of tonnes of dirt and rock go up and over the oil spill. Since it's a considerable amount of dirt and rock, it's enough pressure to cover up the spill indefinitely. This is literally sweeping a problem under the carpet, but is the most economical and ecological solution to this huge environmental disaster.

Anyways, before you flame, take your time to research, or at least read the below two quotes. Russians have nuked 5 underwater oil spills in the past with success, amongst using it 164 times for other things, since it's a lot cheaper.


"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."

"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."

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010...ke-that-slick/

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles...-oil-spill.php

already posted in that thread on like the first few pages.

in the end this would probably be the better of 2 evils.

2012
Posted via RS Mobile

so top hat and hot tap don't work?

This nuke strategy will not solve anything, if worse, the oil can still seep through the rocks and dirts and end up on the shoreline. Right now, the only positive thing for BP is that they still have a good access to the pipe where it is broken but if the nuke thing doesn't work, they won't even be able to get to the broken pipe.

Ultimately the question is what is the contingency plan if plan A doesn't work? It can be a lot cheaper but it can also be a lot more expensive if it fails.

Plan A? lol, these guys are beyond contingency plans, they've probably lost count on what plan their on. They're open to every and any plan at this point, not looking good

I think its always good to keep an open mind to ideas like these, a bit more out of the box but if it has been tried and worked, why the hell not. The oil is screwing up the environment as it is anyways.

Wouldn't trust the Russians to do the "Nuking".

"oops, the guidance system malfunctioned.. sorry Washington"

So the russians did this 5 times 50 years ago with no reported damages to the environment by independent analysts. I don't think there's any evidence to support your hypothesis at all.

Because the US doesn't have nukes, right Einstein?

Look man I am not dissing the Russian or anything but these guys don't always get it right okay? Chernobyl disaster is still fresh in mind. And their entire country almost went bankrupt twice in the last decade.

So I am not saying we shouldn't listen to their advices on how to stop the leak, but in terms of credibility these guys just don't have a lot.

haha what? let's nuke it and see what happens lol

this thread makes me happy BP's handling their fuck up instead of the general public

Chernobyl? Seriously?

Three Mile Island doesn't get near the press that the bohunks got after the disaster because they weren't part of the "Evil Red Menace"

The Russians have moved on in the last 24 years. They're no longer commies and (as such) their engineering has improved greatly.


That being said, I don't support the idea, but I think that dismissing it strictly because of who they are is ridiculous. The French have used their nukes underwater and I doubt we'd be having this discussion if they had offered their help in this way.

You're comparing an accident to a controlled explosion. That's like comparing a random forest fire to the controlled ones. You do know there are controlled forest fires for that matter right?

^Exactly, they have the ability to choose the size of the explosion. I think you would just need a small nuke, just something a little more powerful than TNT.

Don't know if this has been posted yet but it gives you an idea, even though it shows a natural gas leak on land.

If the bomb was deep enough, it shouldn't be a problem right?

^ Interesting video

bp doesnt want to seal the well. they still want the oil from it.

Lol... I think that's the last thing on their mind. They can just drill somewhere else.

wow.. that took 23 secs to seal the leak!
GET TO IT!

cross your fingers, hope, and then prey.

i'm glad you dumbasses have no business building any of our bridges.

what does Chernobyl have anything to do with nuclear weapons? You do know that Chernobyl was a power plant that blew up right? Russians didnt drop a nuclear bomb on the city of Chernobyl. it's ignorant retards like you that make up the majority of the population which is the cause of a lot of the worlds problems.

Yes, the Chernobyl disaster has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, but the fact that something screwed up there means that Russia's nuclear technology may not be the greatest... Therefore, don't take their proposed nuke solution for the oil slick as the silver bullet.

if you have to drill down that deep to plant the nuke why not drill a little further for the relief well.