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

United States
June 27, 2010 7:52am CST
It sounds like something out of a sci-fi end of the world movie and almost unbelievable that it might even be considered but their are arguments right now and scientist who are actually doing studies on the possibilities of using a nuclear war head to cap off the oil spill. What are your thoughts? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html
3 people like this
7 responses
@owlwings (39258)
• Cambridge, England
27 Jun 10
If we sent all the amateur bloggers who are putting out all these crazy ideas down there to hold their hands over the hole, we should certainly contain it. There is something to be said for using nuclear energy to create a seal but there are so many unknowns that the risks are far greater than any potential benefit.
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Jun 10
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?
1 person likes this
@owlwings (39258)
• Cambridge, England
27 Jun 10
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.
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Jun 10
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.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17925)
• United States
27 Jun 10
This would be entirely too risky and, as the article stated, it would violate nuclear weapons treaties that the U.S. not only signed but fought hard for. But, the most important part is the risk to the environment in and along the coast of Gulf of Mexico.
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Jun 10
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.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17925)
• United States
27 Jun 10
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.
1 person likes this
@ram_cv (16516)
• India
27 Jun 10
I think as long as they consider the possibility and rule it out I am ok with it. It would be ridiculous to use a nuclear war head to contain the spill. It would really be starting a major destruction to prevent environmental damage caused by this oil spill. I think this has been going for so long now, that tough actions against BP is warranted to prevent such things happening again. Cheers! Ram
• United States
27 Jun 10
One thing is for sure if people don't object from the start it might gain enough momentum to happen.
2 people like this
@ram_cv (16516)
• India
27 Jun 10
I am pretty sure, better sense would prevail in this matter. Cheers! Ram
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Jun 10
This option has been out there for year in a case like this, and they have never live tested it, but in theory it would work. But, the last think the world needs is the idiots that created this mess with a NUCLEAR WAR HEAD. I think they have shown the world that they can't be trust with drilling for oil, which before this rig, was a pretty safe business. They will have to leave that up to the military to deal with actually using the war head.
• United States
28 Jun 10
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.
• United States
28 Jun 10
Prof. Michio Kaku on nuclear option:'imagine the three stooges with a nuke' ... LOL sums it up pretty good don't it?
@laglen (19782)
• United States
27 Jun 10
#1 it is my understanding that the US said no to this option #2 I also understand that this is a solution that has been used and has been found effective in Russia for years. I am not saying this is the solution, I would like to know what the long term effects are. But shouldnt they be looking at everything?
• United States
27 Jun 10
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.
2 people like this
@laglen (19782)
• United States
27 Jun 10
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!
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
30 Jun 10
You're not kidding it sounds like something out of a sci-fi HORROR movie! I sure hope and pray nobody is taking this seriously as an option. Even blowing the well up with a conventional weapon is not without risk and if it doesn't work there would be no way to stop the gushing. I'm not scientist by any stretch of the imagination but I know enough to know how unstable nuclear materials can be and what a disaster it would be if even a tiny amount of radiation were to be released into the environment. Annie
• United States
30 Jun 10
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.
@1hopefulman (28612)
• Canada
27 Jun 10
Oy vey!