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.

 

No widespread support for "nuking" the oil spill

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Scanning the general media including the alternative media like this site, Infowars, etc., there doesn't seem to be any big support for a nuclear solution to sealing off the oil spill in the gulf.

Personally I felt it was an OK idea, but the will of the majority says no.

If I was in charge I would nuke it, so I guess it is good that I am not in charge. Maybe there is some other way to fix it.




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by chorizo4
 


Well it could be that is the BEST solution but BP, I mean our Gov.
doesn't WANT to fix it yet...




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by chorizo4
 


So you are in favor of contaminating the Gulf with radiation poisoning that will last for centuries? That would kill off any fishing or swimming in the Gulf for good. A nuclear blast option is a terrible idea, and even the former Soviet Union knew that when they did it.

Not to mention how much sea life would be killed by the blast and radiation poisoning.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


It is a very complex and disturbing situation. I was thinking of using the relief wells as nuke chutes, that way the radiation would be contained deep.


What if this is similar to Yellowstone. Yellowstone lake and that dome. The dome rises, higher and higher at Yellowstone and then it collapses! The water drops down and hits the magma. To the moon!

What if there is a dome in the gulf, the oil rushes out, then the pressure equalizes and drops. Reverse flow! The water drops down. Intense pressure and heat. Kaboom!! Core breech. Another asteroid belt.

Goodbye cruel world.

Just a thought, could never really happen.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I have to say, you must have failed high school science class didn't you.

No, the nuclear option won't work.

No, the oil does not sit right on top of the earth's core.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I have to say, you must have failed high school science class didn't you.

No, the nuclear option won't work.

No, the oil does not sit right on top of the earth's core.



It is hurtful for you to bring up my high school shortcomings. Anyway, just got through listening to Lindsey Williams on Alex Jones.

A lot of gasses are being released from the spill, very dangerous. Maybe this is what happened on Mars. Some dumb fook ET drilled too deep and wrecked the entire planet.

I think it's the water that is most dangerous, if it drops down into a fissure and hits magma at those pressures, it would make Yellowstone seem tame by comparison.

Look at the bright side, your doctor told you to quit smoking or drinking so much. Don't bother.



[edit on 11-6-2010 by chorizo4]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Yeah,ignite all the frozen methane gas lying on the bottom of the ocean with a blast and shock wave that may possibly fracture the earth's crust and release more petroleum.

Obama and his minions are obviously incompetents but they are not THAT stupid.

The leak is a mile deep.The well pipe extends another 3 miles to the source.

Even to discuss it only as a possibility shows how stupid people can be.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by chorizo4
 


Ok there is so much "fail" in this that the only way I can show you is through video.

Your suggestion?



As for this gem...


I think it's the water that is most dangerous, if it drops down into a fissure and hits magma at those pressures, it would make Yellowstone seem tame by comparison.




This is why...



Underwater Volcanoes happen, the Earth doesn't explode.

Now, this is what happens when you explode a nuclear device underground on dry land...



Put that underwater, and what would happen is the pocket of oil that this rig drilled into would simply just immediately be released. Causing an even bigger environmental disaster. The oil does not sit on top of the core, the core is way further beneath where the well is. There would be no danger in opening up a fissure letting in thousands of gallons of seawater.

So to sum this all up.

Your suggestion?



And your worries about it destroying the Earth?



I hope that clears it up for you.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


It's a "Hobson"s Choice". Like someone asking you if you would rather get hit over the head with a hammer or poked in the eye with a stick.

I may change my opinions on the subject, here's why:

Say you are at the 5.00 crap tables and doing poorly. Holy snip! But look, there are the 25.00 crap tables right over there. A few good hits and you are back in the pink.

You know what happens next, you go to the 25.00 crap tables and get cleaned out. Just felt left in your wallet.

We have had no luck with this spill, to nuke it could be seen as a desperate attempt to "get lucky".


But with all those gasses leaking out, the benzene, corexit, won't they be tempted to take the big risk? They will have to evacuate the region anyway when a big hurricane comes, the two "relief wells" will be there, a voice will tell them, " a small nuke in each, and everything will be OK".



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I do not like the idea one little bit but I know that if it does not get stooped soon there may be no other choice but to try it any way. If this oil starts showing up on beaches in other counties they may make the call for us. There comes a point when you have to do somehing even if it is wrong.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by chorizo4
 


Yep, Nuking it is a badd idea..

get a M.O.A.B. down there instead..



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
I do not like the idea one little bit but I know that if it does not get stooped soon there may be no other choice but to try it any way. If this oil starts showing up on beaches in other counties they may make the call for us. There comes a point when you have to do somehing even if it is wrong.



I have been reading some things on this site and others sites and I am thinking now that they have waited too long and the nuke idea has lost what little chance it did have of working. If it had been nuked in the days after the blowout then it had a very good chance of working but I fear now that a nuke at this put would only make matters worse. Not sure what we can do at this point.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
The actual oil pocket is 2 miles deeper than the hole itself. Why wouldn't a targeted blast simply cave the opening in? With a mile of water over the hole, I would think the pressure would collapse it, with so much earth over the pocket itself.

But then I know nothing of physics or explosives.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SantaClaus
The actual oil pocket is 2 miles deeper than the hole itself. Why wouldn't a targeted blast simply cave the opening in? With a mile of water over the hole, I would think the pressure would collapse it, with so much earth over the pocket itself.

But then I know nothing of physics or explosives.


OK. Here is how I understand it. Right now we have a hole with oil comiing out of it. If the nuke failed we could have a lake with oil coming out of it. Try to see it this way. A hole is easyer to stop than a funnel. That is what it would lok like a big hole lets say hundreds of feet across and hundreds of feet deep still being feed by that same hole. It would just make matters worse. Now there may come a time where we have to risk it anyway. Now that is the way I am understanding it. I could be wrong.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by SantaClaus
The actual oil pocket is 2 miles deeper than the hole itself. Why wouldn't a targeted blast simply cave the opening in? With a mile of water over the hole, I would think the pressure would collapse it, with so much earth over the pocket itself.

But then I know nothing of physics or explosives.


OK. Here is how I understand it. Right now we have a hole with oil comiing out of it. If the nuke failed we could have a lake with oil coming out of it. Try to see it this way. A hole is easyer to stop than a funnel. That is what it would lok like a big hole lets say hundreds of feet across and hundreds of feet deep still being feed by that same hole. It would just make matters worse. Now there may come a time where we have to risk it anyway. Now that is the way I am understanding it. I could be wrong.


I am not saying what should happen, but what will happen. The gulf area will be evacuated for hurricane reasons, like it was last year. At this time, the relief wells will become nuke chutes. They have the available "experts" to appear on MSNBC and FOX, they will say it is a good idea, Obama will stand ready with a speech, the leak will be nuked.

To guess what the possible outcome of this would be you need to consult some other forum, or pay a lot.

You have gotten the most you can get for free.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join