It's worse than we know
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 14:55
VIEWED: 15311
PAGE 4 of 25
Radioactive hurricanes?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Mike, people will make politics out of anything. But the disaster itself is not a political event. It's a big black swath of poison killing everything in its wake.
You keep mentioning that BP has the expertise to deal with this, and I agree. But they don't have the physical resources required. It is absolutely necessary, no matter the political landscape or who might earn 'points,' for the government to become heavily involved in containment and cleanup.
You seem to be advocating that the president should watch this disaster unfold in order to preserve some kind of political advantage or protection. Guess what? Even if mobilizing nothing would magically protect him from political fallout, I'd still want him to mobilize everything. And so should you.
Unless you are actually arguing that there is simply no action to take?
I'm arguing that there may very well be no action that THE PRESIDENT can take. Or Congress. Or the military. What action can BP take? What about Halliburton? How about TransOcean? They were all intimately involved with building, outfitting, and running this rig, and Halliburton has a budget larger than many countries. Are you saying Dick Cheney doesn't have the resources on his speed dial?
I'm starting to think Obama's suggestion of checking our tire pressures was the genius thing to say, especially in light of the "Drill, Baby, Drill!" dumbfucks like Rappy and his crew. Bet they'd give a lot to not be drilling that 3% of oil right now, huh?
Ask BP what they need. What resources would help? Ask Halliburton. Tell Cheney it's his duty to his country to tell Halliburton to get off their asses and help. Where is he in all this? Doesn't he still get a paycheck from them, and from the federal government?
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why does anyone have any notion that nuking a hole in the ocean floor would plug said hole? Last images I saw of Bikini Atoll before and after seemed to show a much larger hole after the nuke shot. And I'm not crazy about the idea of using the one thing on Earth we know is absolutely deadlier and more dangerous than an oil spill to stop an oil spill. Seems rather like treating a case of dandruff by decapitation. Even if it stops the dandruff, it kills the patient.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
If I thought a tactical nuke would seal the hole, I'd be advocating it. Get this- all the radioactive naughtiness of a kiloton nuclear warhead is actually BETTER for the environment than a month-long oil spill.
But I haven't heard anything credible that suggests a nuke would get the job done.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
If I thought a tactical nuke would seal the hole, I'd be advocating it. Get this- all the radioactive naughtiness of a kiloton nuclear warhead is actually BETTER for the environment than a month-long oil spill.
But I haven't heard anything credible that suggests a nuke would get the job done.
Exactly. There's as much chance that a nuke would create a BIGGER geyser of oil as there is that it would seal the hole.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The discussion was that of a low-yield nuclear device. Not a gigantic explosion to blow a hole in the earth, but a device that could melt the metal and slag, cauterizing the wound, so to speak. People who are way smarter and well-versed than me have discussed how and why it would work.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
you might make the zone uninhabitable for millenium, rather than centuries.
I will just point out that, while the ecosystem of Prince William Sound is still devastated beyond sight of recovery to this day, there is plenty of thriving population and wildlife in Nagasaki.
And yes, there have been a lot of nuclear devices set off in the ocean as tests. This would not be anywhere close to the most powerful nuke detonated down there. I think the postulation that it would cause less damage than the oil continuing to gush is a sound one. And a low-yield explosion melting the metal and slag around the area would likely be a far more efficient plug than a ball of mud.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, anyone old enough to remember IXTOC 1?
That was in 1979, in the Gulf of Mexico. An oil rig built by SNG exploded, burned, and sank after a blowout preventer failed. The wellhead gushed oil into the Gulf for TEN MONTHS, totalling more than 140 million gallons. It still stands as the largest accidental oil spill in history, and the second-largest oil spill of any kind, behind Saddam's pumping of more than 300 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf.
By the way, that company that built the rig, SNG? They changed their name after that. They call themselves TransOcean now. We were assured that what happened there could never happen again, because failsafe measures were put into place.
"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to endlessly repeat it," is the phrase I believe you're looking for. That, or "Oh, good grief."
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The discussion was that of a low-yield nuclear device."
Hello,
Yes, I expect it would be a very small kiloton range device, if any device at all. But nobody has come forward saying, "We're 90% sure this'll get the job done." And no one has said, "We're 90% sure this won't make the problem worse."
Because the worst case scenario would be blowing up a nuke and not improving the situation.
So, when the experts say it's definitely the way to go, I'll be the first one saying 'full speed ahead.' Until then, it's just an idea that hasn't been properly weighed and measured.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
it's just an idea that hasn't been properly weighed and measured.
http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/use-nukes-to-contain-the-oil-spil
l.php
"Soviet Russia had used controlled nuclear explosions to contain oil spills, on at least five different occasions."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I was not aware that it was a proven method.
If they can't stop the spill with their top kill, and a tac nuke could get the job done, I hope they use one.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME