BP leak out of the frying pan and into the fire, Nuclear option as a fix.

The thing that worries me is if they really are saying its not an option than why are 'scores of scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory' involved? Or was The New York Times just being dramatic?

I think you mis-read the article. It makes it clear, first, that, officially, "neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else was thinking about a nuclear blast under the gulf. The nuclear option was not — and never had been — on the table, federal officials said." It then goes on to say, "The atomic option is perhaps the wildest among a flood of ideas proposed by bloggers, scientists and other creative types [clearly using the word 'scientists' in a rather euphemistic way] who have deluged government agencies and BP, the company that drilled the well, with phone calls and e-mail messages." The New York Times (as is its wont) is, of course, being slightly dramatic.

Yes I read about Stephen Chu but a lot more can be determined from our government by action than "official words" and that is why I said the part about scientist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory worries me. I hope you are correct and that they were just being overly dramatic and any scientist from there were involved only in more of a geological aspect and not a nuclear aspect.

The first I had heard of it was on youtube yesterday I thought it was a joke and people were kidding than I seen a few news cast with scientist, politicians and former military recommending it and I thought this is insane. My worry is they are just trying to gauge the reaction to the public before they make a decision in which case people need cut this off from the start and say no way before these people get any kind of momentum or steam behind this idea.

I'm in Florida and no one has to ask around to know how the majority of the folks in the gulf coast region feel about any kind of nuclear *fix*. NO...NO...and NO!! It's bad enough that the fishing, shrimping and oyster industries have been devastated by the spill. To add even the most remote possibility that Gulf seafood is contaminated with radioactive material as well is not something the citizens of any of the Gulf states will even consider. Not to mention what that fear would do to the tourist industry. And, again, the U.S. signed a treaty which prohibits the use of nuclear weapons for something like this. We don't have the option of saying, "Oh, never mind." and use a nuke anyway.

laglen, no one knows what the long term effects could be, what if we end up with a radioactive oil spill as the article states or we cause a geological disaster that is 100 times worse. Russia has done a lot of damage to the environment is it really the nation whose ideas we want to follow, besides that in those cases its above ground not deep water well. What worries me is it seems every time we hear of bad ideas they say "oh no we aren't going to do that' than the next thing you know we are there.

Evan, that is why I said that we can consider it, but I am not saying we should do it. I havent looked at it enough to know either way. or we cause a geological disaster that is 100 times worse. - this is what I am talking about!

I have heard that there are leaks springing up all over the floor bed near the well. At the very least BP should be charged with gross negligence at the worst it seems they are deliberately making it worse.

I am pretty sure, better sense would prevail in this matter. Cheers! Ram

One thing is for sure if people don't object from the start it might gain enough momentum to happen.

I got news for ya I was in the military and a lot of those entrusted with nuclear weapons shouldn't be either...lol. One of my x-bro-in-laws was a guard on a Air force silo base and I wouldn't trust him with his own kids let alone the security of a nuclear weapon.

Prof. Michio Kaku on nuclear option:'imagine the three stooges with a nuke' ... LOL sums it up pretty good don't it?