It's worse than we know
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 14:55
VIEWED: 15311
PAGE 5 of 25
Hello,
I just noticed this:
"The science is to drill a hole near the leak, set off the explosion and then seal off the leak-used in the soviet for an oil spill in the desert. If it is rocky surface the explosion would shift the rock which then squeezes the funnel of the well. The first underground nuclear explosion was done in Urt-Bulak in 1966 to control burning gas wells. The success ratio is quite high with only one of them failing to prevent a spill in Kharkov region in 1972."
So, the situation may not be the same. Apparently, it was used on dry land, not on an ocean bottom. The physics may not be identical.
--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:
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.
Several square miles around Chernobyl and down-winders might take issue with that.
Eh, it really depends on how readily the radioactive stuff diffuses. I'm not dead set against it, but it's worth it to troubleshoot the potential problems.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Controlled nuclear explosions". That sounds about as legitimate as "military intelligence", and just about as likely.
How does one "control" a nuclear explosion. Once you trigger it, it's pretty much going to do what it does. It's not like you can build a big box to contain it.
And Soviet Russia tended to go for really drastical overkill solutions, and damn the consequences. After all, it wasn't like you could sue the government. In Soviet Russia, government sues YOU! And radiation and pollution were never high on the Soviets' list of things to worry about. Remember, Soviet Russia also issued orders to execute any civilians trying to flee Stalingrad during the siege. And they also had a commander who actually went down the lines of his own retreating soldiers, counting them off, and shooting every tenth one in the face, until his pistol ran out of ammunition, literally decimating his own troops (that is the definition of the word - taking one of every ten), just to keep the other nine in line, and to show them how merciless he would be with any perceived cowards.
So I'm not positive I'm ready to listen to the Russians, especially when they're trying to convince us to nuke ourselves. Sorry, but I'm a skeptic. It's difficult for me to believe that nuclear explosions are ever the best option.
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
You raise some good points, but I still think that a nuclear explosion would be a better option than more millions of gallons of oil swamping the Gulf. If certain assessments are correct and it would quickly and effectively plug the leak, of course.
The best option would be this never happening in the first place. But I do own a car and enjoy the benefits of electricity. I shoulder as much blame for that as anyone else in an oil-hungry world. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I'm willing to bet that if you pulled up to the gas station and the sign read, "Unleaded - Price: $1 Trillion dollars in ecological impact and 22 Extinct species."
Then you'd have gone a different route.
We all expect our industries to operate safely.
--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
By the windy, earthy, watery, and fiery Celtic Gods, who the fuck brought up nukes!!!
It's bad enough that the fish and birds are going to have tar all over them and die, do they have glow in the dark too?
We're never going to cure cancer if we (the people of the Earth) keep setting off nukes every ten years.
Bloody humans.
--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Russia brought them up first, I heard about the idea on Bill Maher, I brought it up here.
If such a technique made the soon-to-be nonexistent Gulf life glow in the dark, I would personally apologize to you and your Celtic gods.
And on a totally random tangent, there's as much or more evidence that sugar and insulin feed cancer than that nuclear reactions feed cancer.
ex. http://www.jci.org/articles/view/114868
Want a cure? We could stop pumping high fructose gunk into everything. If radiation is a deadly factor, we should also cut back on microwaves and medical diagnostics that make use of it; those things give the average person far more exposure to radiation than offshore nuclear tests.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Unleaded - Price: $1 Trillion dollars in ecological impact and 22 Extinct species.
That... made me cry a little bit.
Yes, I would have gone a very different route, I think.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike,
This non-response is 100 % fully and wholly Obama's fault.
For all the crap Bush took over Katrina, Obama deserves 10,000,000 x's the grief. Because this disaster, though not his doing, proved he lacks the leadership, vision and caring to do what is required.
Even James Carville agrees.
Suck that, for all eternity.
( Pretty soon, the entire planet will suffer from Obama derangement syndrome. And for damn good reason ) 
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Mike,
This non-response is 100 % fully and wholly Obama's fault.
Which is why he responded in less than 24 hours.
Quote:
For all the crap Bush took over Katrina, Obama deserves 10,000,000 x's the grief. Because this disaster, though not his doing, proved he lacks the leadership, vision and caring to do what is required.
For "all the crap Bush took over Katrina", you were there every step of the way, claiming that his response was letter-perfect, that he was "doing a heckuva job". You've failed to show anywhere where you pulled that "10,000,000x's" number (out of your ass, I'm guessing). How many thousands of people have died as a direct result of Obama's response? Until you can show me video of 10,000,000 x's the thousands of people who died in Katrina, it's pure bullshit. It just never happened.
Quote:
Even James Carville agrees.
Gosh, that settles it, then. You'll follow Carville to the ends of the Earth, I take it, because he's never wrong. Right?
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
Quote:
By the way, anyone old enough to remember IXTOC 1? That was in 1979
Rachel Maddow covered that last night in great detail. It seems that EVERYTHING BP has done and is doing to stop the spill was tried 31 years ago, and everything failed. The oil industry has not advanced one iota in any sort of capacity to deal with these accidents. They have though advanced many iotas in reaping in windfall billions of profits.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME