Users Online Now:
994
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
324,608
Pageviews Today:
491,615
Threads Today:
191
Posts Today:
2,454
05:44 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Russia says oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico can be stopped with nuclear explosion
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:kepow 977630:MV8xMDU2MDg1XzE3MDQ5NTgyX0NEMDVDODI5] [quote:Anonymous Coward 241421] It would just make a bigger hole and irradiate the entire hemisphere. Of course, they do think long term so if everyone in this hemisphere dies of radiation poisoning, they could claim it all after about ten years. From their point of view it is probably a fine idea. No it would not. Do you know how many times nuclear devices have been detonated underground and underwater???? MANY MANY times. Are we dead yet? No. Use some logic. If you drill a hole 1.5km down and deposit a small tactical nuke and detonate it, you will get an earthquake, and thats about it. The weight and pressure of the earth above and beside it will contain the blast and the hole drilled will collapse into itself along with any nearby holes. [/quote] I agree with this. Water is an effective radiation BARRIER. Radiated water breaks up into the elements that comprise it; oxygen and hydrogen. Under pressure (such as 5000 ft. under the ocean for example) the hydrogen and oxygen will revert back to water, though some gas will reach the surface and carry with it some radiation, but all very minimal and not in any way would there be fallout. People can read about it here if they feel like educating themselves: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/enw77b2.html I'm no nuclear physicist, but I believe a nuclear bomb would do far, far less damage than what we currently have, where the oil has already traveled 200+ miles with no end in sight. The next person to shoot this nuclear bomb idea down should do everyone a favor and post some actual evidence of their claims that the idea is stupid. [/quote]
Original Message
This is translated directly from Russian, cleaned it up a bit but reading it at the link is better.
Russia says oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico can be stopped with nuclear explosion
Vladimir Lagowski - 03/05/2010
It is possible that unsuccessful attempts to stop the leakage of oil from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico through the underwater robots compel professionals to take extreme measures. Namely - to blow up next to the damaged wells nuclear warhead.
It sounds terribly and incredibly - the idiotic joke. But in fact there were several cases where catastrophes in the fields of fighting in this way. In the former USSR - five times. When nothing else has not helped. It's now in the Gulf of Mexico, where oil oozes out of the way from three places.
First underground nuclear explosion was used to extinguish burning gas wells in "Urt-Bulak (80 km from Bukhara) 30 September 1966. Power charge was 30 kilotons. For comparison, the Hiroshima bomb exploded about 20 kilotons. Но на высоте 600 метров. But at a height of 600 meters. A near Bukhara - at a depth of six kilometers.
The idea of the method is simple: an underground explosion pushes the rock, presses it and actually squeezes the channel well.
Powerful nuclear "plugs" - sometimes 3 Hiroshima - we have enjoyed until 1979. And only once failed. In 1972 in Kharkov region failed to block the emergency gas blowout. The explosion was mysteriously left on the surface, forming a mushroom cloud. Although the charge was minimal - just a 4 kiloton. And laid deep - for more than two kilometers.
Total probability of failure in the Gulf of Mexico - 20 percent. Americans could take a chance. The chance of dying during the flight to the moon they were even higher.
course, we used a civilian nuclear program on the ground, the Americans as to the sea - under water where the ocean depth reaches 1500 meters.
But in principle there is no difference - you still need to drill a well at a distance from leaking. И в нее опускать бомбу. And it lowered the bomb. Как в фильме "Армагедон" с Брюсом Уиллисом в роли бурильщика. As in the movie "Armageddon" with Bruce Willis in the role of a driller. Желательно, чтобы расчеты были сделаны правильно. It is desirable that the calculations were done correctly. Такая надежда есть: в США полно умных ученых и мощных компьютеров. Such hope is: the U.S. is full of smart scientists and powerful computers. Да и Россия могла бы посодействовать. And Russia could have contributed. У нас еще живы мирные ядерные подрывники. We still live peaceful nuclear demolition.
[
link to translate.google.com
]
hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u= [
link to www.kp.ru
]
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>