[BNR32_Coupe]

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/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/use-nukes-to-contain-the-oil-spill.php

[Meowjin]

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

[dizzystar]

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

[4doorVIP]

2012
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[hk20000]

so top hat and hot tap don't work?

[Carl Johnson]

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.

[tacobell]

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

[_TiDy_]

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.

[Teriyaki]

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

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

[BNR32_Coupe]

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.

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.

[bengy]

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

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

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

[Carl Johnson]

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.

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.

[goo3]

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

[El Bastardo]

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.




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.

[goo3]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:nqZ29W5otkYxfM:http://takeaction.oceana.org/images/springfield_fish.gif

[BNR32_Coupe]

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.

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?

[SpartanAir]

^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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU

[alwaysideways]

^ Interesting video

[sunny_j]

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

[falcon]

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

[pure.life]

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

[goo3]

cross your fingers, hope, and then prey.

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

[xpl0sive]

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.

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.

[Gumby]

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.

[sunny_j]

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

[Great68]

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

Exactly.

[Carl Johnson]

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.

The disaster clearly shows that the Russians are not competent with their nuclear technology. I mean they can't even properly operate a nuclear power plant without fucking things up for the rest of Europe.

So do you think the U.S. Government and BP is going to listen to the Russian's proposal on using a Nuclear bomb? HELL NO. The worst thing can happen is the nuke fails to stop the leak and we have not just oil spill but nuclear oil spill as well.

And by this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html) it doesn't seem I am alone on this point.

[goo3]

what does Chernobyl have anything to do with nuclear weapons?

the nuke part, radiation, cancer..

[TheKingdom2000]

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


umm i'm not sure it's as easy as that.
in this instance, i believe there are other factors affecting it!

i'm not sure what those factors are because i'm not really following it, but i vaguely remember on the news that you can't just drill down and cut it off

[Meowjin]

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.

How about melt downs that have occured in the states? It seems like noone knows about china syndrome.

[Great68]

How about melt downs that have occured in the states? It seems like noone knows about china syndrome.

Three Mile Island was the only "Meltdown" in the USA, and it was a partial one at that, mostly due to mechanical failure.

Chernobyl was caused by operators knowingly running the reactor outside of design parameters, and ignoring clear warning signs.

[xpl0sive]

Russia has over 30 nuclear reactors currently in operation. Some of the nuclear powerplants have been set up in the late 1960's and are still operational today. So 1 reactor meltdown out of 30+ in 50 years of operations does not make the Russians incompetent with their nuclear technology... people need to take a second and read the actual facts, not eat up everything they see on TV and take it as the truth... the north american media only shows what they WANT the public to see. there is a whole another world out there if you just take a second and look.

[Gumby]

^
Unfortunately, that is very true, and I'm often guilty of only seeing the NA point of view...

[xpl0sive]

some facts about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island Meltdowns:

Chernobyl:
At this plant the worst reactor disaster to ever occur took place on April 26, 1986. It happened largely because normal reactor operations were suspended; an experiment was to take place in the reactor. As a result, normal safety guidelines were disregarded, and the accident occurred.

What caused the accident? This is a very hard question to answer. The obvious one is operator error. The operator was not very familiar with the reactor and hadn't been trained enough. Additionally, when the accident occurred, normal safety rules were not being followed because they were running a test. For example, regulations required that at least 15 control rods always remain in the reactor. When the explosion occurred, less than 10 were present. This happened because many of the rods were removed to raise power output. This was one of the direct causes of the accident. Also, the reactor itself was not designed well and was prone to abrupt and massive power surges.

Three Mile Island:
Unit 2 experienced a partial reactor meltdown on March 28, 1979. A partial nuclear meltdown is when the uranium fuel rods start to liquefy, but they do not fall through the reactor floor and breach the containment systems. The accident which occurred at Unit 2 is considered to be the worst nuclear disaster in US history. Why did it happen? There are many reasons for the accident, but the two main ones are simple human error and the failure of a rather minor valve in the reactor.

See anything similar? Both accidents occured due to operator error. How does that make Russia incompetent in Nuclear Technology?

[Great68]

See anything similar? Both accidents occured due to operator error. How does that make Russia incompetent in Nuclear Technology?

The difference is that in Chernobyl, the operators intentionally put the plant into an unsafe situation - by performing their tests when they knew how bad the positive voide coefficient (shitty design) of that RBMK reactor was.

In Three Mile Island the operator error occurred with how they dealt with unexpected mechanical failure. It was much more accidental.

In my opinion there's a big difference between the two. I would rather not risk a nuclear power plant's safety needlessly. The soviets thought otherwise I guess.

[xpl0sive]

The difference is that in Chernobyl, the operators intentionally put the plant into an unsafe situation - by performing their tests when they knew how bad the positive voide coefficient (shitty design) of that RBMK reactor was.

In Three Mile Island the operator error occurred was with how they dealt with unexpected mechanical failure. It was much more accidental.

In my opinion there's a big difference between the two. I would rather not risk a nuclear power plant's safety needlessly. The soviets thought otherwise I guess.

at this point its all just speculation. who knows, if they left the reactor alone, it could have exploded on its own 5 years down the road due to it's "shitty" design. instead they took the risk to test it and see if it was capable of handling the stress... then we all know what happened

[weitaro]

Controlled Nuclear Blast under seabed....

birth of Godzilla 10 years later?