It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barack Obama sends nuclear experts to tackle BP

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't see how we can make any kind of judgment about this unless of course, we're nuclear experts or geologists or something... How can you pooh-pooh on an idea that you don't even understand?

I'm not saying this is the right way to go about it, but at least I admit that I don't have a clue how to fix this disaster. And if experts in the field think that somehow a nuclear 'something' might fix it, then I'm going to have to know more about it before I approve OR disapprove.

Having scientists look for a solution seems the most practical and effective next step to me... It's not like they're getting ready to set off a nuke and then see what happens.



You're absolutely right. None of us are probably qualified to know what would happen with this whole nuclear option, but if what some scientists have said is true, and there is a large natural gas deposit within that oil field (which may or may not have sunk the oil rig to begin with), and we set off a nuke, there will most likely be some very serious consequences. With the way things are going, I fear for the fate of our planet and our oceans, and all the people affected economically by this tragedy.



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Exactly. I think if they had been forthright from the beginning, my suspicious mind wouldn't be working in overdrive.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Ryskin calculated that some 10,000 gigatons of dissolved methane could have accumulated in water near the ocean floor under high pressure. If released quickly, perhaps triggered by an earthquake, the resulting cloud of methane would have an explosive force about 10,000 times greater than the world's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. The huge conflagrations plus flooding and overturned oceans would cause the extinctions. (Approximately 95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were lost.)


This is an even more compelling reason to deploy the nuclear weapons. Surely Indonesia, New Zealand and the Great Barrier Reef would protect us from the brunt of this explosion and the aftermath.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Tell ya what, even living here, between Gulfport, and Biloxi, the trickle of news we get even on the local level is pretty sad.

So with the oil leak being bad enough, they want to use something nuclear? Heck, we have to worry about bombs in the area now, too?

Hopefully, the news on when they decide to do such a thing, if they do, will be a surprise to us all.

I'm thinking it might be time to pack up and move north again....way north!



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by belial259
 


Yep, appears this is just an American problem.





[edit on 16-5-2010 by Soular System]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticHaving scientists look for a solution seems the most practical and effective next step to me... It's not like they're getting ready to set off a nuke and then see what happens.


lol, I won't be suprised if they decided to go along and do that. As history proved that we end up making the environment worse than it already is. Like tackling "Global Warming". We can't tackle it we just end up making it worse. Some guy had the idea of launching solar shades out into our atmosphere that will block out 2 percent of the suns light. Another guy was to make a artificial volcano that would release sulfides into our atmosphere thus cooling down the temp.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

So with that in mind, an explosion might not be a good plan.



Good answer.

I mean.... That's like tactical-nuking Yellowstone.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

So with that in mind, an explosion might not be a good plan.



Good answer.

I mean.... That's like tactical-nuking Yellowstone.


I'm starting to think it might be best to let the spill run it's course.

The more we fight it, the worse it appears to be getting. Look at all the red oil, suggesting the dispersents are in use far more than they are letting on.

I think they are already using some scary laboratory made bacteria. and this is it's initial test. Maybe the nukes are to stop the red goo from spreading.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   









Underwater explosion-- UNDEX

Shallow underwater explosion

An example of a shallow underwater explosion is the BAKER nuclear test at Bikini Atoll in July 1946, which was part of Operation Crossroads. A 20 kiloton warhead was detonated in a lagoon which was approximately 200 ft (61 m) deep. The first effect was illumination of the water because of the underwater fireball. A rapidly expanding gas bubble created a shock wave that caused an expanding ring of apparently dark water at the surface, called the slick, followed by an expanding ring of apparently white water, called the crack. A mound of water and spray, called the spray dome, formed at the water's surface which became more columnar as it rose. When the rising gas bubble broke the surface, it created a shock wave in the air as well. Water vapor in the air condensed as a result of a Prandtl-Glauert singularity, making a spherical cloud that marked the location of the shock wave. Water filling the cavity formed by the bubble caused a hollow column of water, called the chimney or plume, to rise 6,000 ft (1,800 m) in the air and break through the top of the cloud. A series of surface waves moved outwards from the center. The first wave was about 94 ft (29 m) high at 1,000 ft (300 m) from the center. Other waves followed, and at further distances some of these were higher than the first wave. For example, at 22,000 ft (6,700 m) from the center, the ninth wave was the highest at 6 ft (1.8 m). Gravity caused the column to fall to the surface and caused a cloud of mist to move outwards rapidly from the base of the column, called the base surge. The ultimate size of the base surge was 3.5 mi (5.6 km) in diameter and 1,800 ft (550 m) high. The base surge rose from the surface and merged with other products of the explosion, to form clouds which produced moderate to heavy rainfall for nearly one hour.

Deep underwater explosion

An example of a deep underwater explosion is the WAHOO test, which was carried out in 1958 as part of Operation Hardtack. The nuclear device was detonated at a depth of 500 ft (150 m) in deep water. There was little evidence of a fireball. The spray dome rose to a height of 900 ft (270 m). Gas from the bubble broke through the spray dome to form jets which shot out in all directions and reached heights of up to 1,700 ft (520 m). The base surge at its maximum size was 2.5 mi (4.0 km) in diameter and 1,000 ft (300 m) high. The heights of surface waves generated by deep underwater explosions are greater because more energy is delivered to the water. Deep underwater explosions are thus particularly able to damage coastal areas, because surface waves increase in height as they move over shallow water, and can flood the land beyond the shoreline. Many of the theories and concepts about these waves are similar to those that are applicable to other types of surface waves, in particular, tsunamis, and waves generated by the fall of a meteor. If a deep underwater explosion occurs at a sufficient depth, the rising gas bubble can over expand because the gas pressure falls below the pressure of the surrounding water. This causes the bubble to collapse, which causes a second shock wave and bubble expansion. This may be repeated, though there are unlikely to be more than three expansions. An example is the WIGWAM test, which was carried out in 1955. The nuclear device was detonated at a depth of 2,000 ft (610 m).

Other effects

The detonation of an explosive charge underwater results in an initial high-velocity shockwave through the water, in movement or displacement of the water itself and in the formation of a high-pressure bubble of high-temperature gas. This bubble expands rapidly until it either vents to the surface or until its internal pressure is exceeded by that of the water surrounding it. (The volumetric expansion of the bubble also leads to a drop in internal temperature in accordance with Charles’ Law.) At this point, as noted above, the overexpanded bubble collapses into itself, leading again to a rise in bubble pressure and internal temperature until such time as the bubble pressure exceeds water pressure. The bubble again expands, although to a rather smaller size. A second shockwave is produced by this expansion, although it will be less intense and of rather greater duration than the first. With each cycle, the bubble moves upwards until it eventually vents or dissipates into a mass of smaller bubbles. The number of cycles, while generally low, is difficult to predict; they and the overall effects, depend on explosion depth (and thus water pressure), the size and nature of the explosive charge and the presence, composition and distance of reflecting surfaces such as the seabed, surface, thermoclines, etc. This phenomenon has been extensively used in antiship warhead design since an underwater explosion (particularly one underneath a hull) can produce greater damage than an above-surface one of the same explosive size. Initial damage to a target will be caused by the first shockwave; this damage will be amplified by the subsequent physical movement of water and by the repeated secondary shockwaves or bubble pulse. Additionally, charge detonation away from the target can result in damage over a larger hull area.



M'kay.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by loam]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I can see how bombing the gusher might work, but I dont think nuking it is an option. Nuclear fallout, a radioactive gulf, how insane of a species are we? Why not use a MOAB?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soular System

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

So with that in mind, an explosion might not be a good plan.



Good answer.

I mean.... That's like tactical-nuking Yellowstone.


I'm starting to think it might be best to let the spill run it's course.

The more we fight it, the worse it appears to be getting. Look at all the red oil, suggesting the dispersents are in use far more than they are letting on.

I think they are already using some scary laboratory made bacteria. and this is it's initial test. Maybe the nukes are to stop the red goo from spreading.


That got me thinking about the "gray goo" end of the world scenario. What if they are engineering biological or nanotech agents to either eat up or disperse this oil? How would they stop them once they were done? Would they be able to self-replicate? *shudders* Kinda freaky thinking about it.



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Wonder if a nuke has even been tested at 5000 ft. With nowhere for the pressure wave to go, does it collapse the ocean floor, or create a huge tsunami, or both?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shrukin89
lol, I won't be suprised if they decided to go along and do that. As history proved that we end up making the environment worse than it already is.


Yes but history has also proven humans can change the environment in beneficial ways too. Sometimes we make mistakes like this. But if we do isn't it our responsibility to fix those mistakes, or at least try to mitigate the damage?

I can't believe in 2010, USA the most powerful nation on Earth can't stop an oil leak. I keep seeing these attempts and I can't take them seriously. Small containment domes that get blocked? Golf balls and trash?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
These so called experts are so lost it's not even funny ..

They're hoping a controlled nuclear detonation will instantly form a glass like crater covering the hole ..

What they don't realize is that a mini nuke can't provide that effect .. and even worse this is a mile under WATER ... not land ..

If they use a full war head .. they might as well curl up into a fetal position in a dark room .. cover their ears and rock back and forth crying 'make it all go away' ..



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Soular System
 


Read the highlighted portions above.

Sounds pretty freakin' scary to me.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Soular System
 


Read the highlighted portions above.

Sounds pretty freakin' scary to me.


Yes, thanks for pointing that out to me. Missed it the first time.

The deepwater experiment was done at 2000 ft? I wonder if the effects are exponential the deeper they go.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Soular System]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by belial259

Originally posted by Shrukin89
lol, I won't be suprised if they decided to go along and do that. As history proved that we end up making the environment worse than it already is.


Yes but history has also proven humans can change the environment in beneficial ways too. Sometimes we make mistakes like this. But if we do isn't it our responsibility to fix those mistakes, or at least try to mitigate the damage?

I can't believe in 2010, USA the most powerful nation on Earth can't stop an oil leak. I keep seeing these attempts and I can't take them seriously. Small containment domes that get blocked? Golf balls and trash?



Doesn't is kinda make you think that they are stalling, allowing this spill to get bigger. The suggestions they have come up with so far, and the lack of transparency tells me there is much to this we are woefully unaware of.

And yes, this will have global consequences.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by legalizeit
 


Hmm, storing books in salt mines, storing seeds in the Arctic, wonder where they've hid the Ark?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Soular System
 



Originally posted by Soular System
Doesn't is kinda make you think that they are stalling


I think that is because they really have no idea how to fix this. Ixtoc I took nine months to cap with similar strategies, under much better circumstances.

I think what is really being delayed is the admission we are really screwed. They need to get real, be completely candid, release all data, and seek help from any source possible.

So far, imo, they are in denial.


Originally posted by Soular System
And yes, this will have global consequences.


Maybe.

But in addition to the likely environmental consequences, don't forget about the economic, social, and political ones. Each will surely be just as significant.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by loam]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by belial259
Yes but history has also proven humans can change the environment in beneficial ways too. Sometimes we make mistakes like this. But if we do isn't it our responsibility to fix those mistakes, or at least try to mitigate the damage?

I can't believe in 2010, USA the most powerful nation on Earth can't stop an oil leak. I keep seeing these attempts and I can't take them seriously. Small containment domes that get blocked? Golf balls and trash?



I'll rephrase what I said. In history we make things worse by attempting something that has never been attempted before. Those are where we make the mistakes. But yeah we can change the environment in beneficial ways, because they tried it before and it works. Like containing and putting out a wildfire, firefighters know how to stop a fire from spreading, by doing controlled fire ignitions around the main forest fire. Or by bulldozing the trees down and moving them off to the side, preventing it from getting bigger.




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join