# Why not Nuke the oil leak? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 1, 2010, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458 "2010-06-01T03:53:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/41 "2010-06-02T21:51:08Z")
> [@Sinisterniik](#): > > Can you please look through your reference material and find where it says that radiation from nuclear blasts are not detrimental to the health of the people, plants, and animals in the affected area? > > I wasn’t trying to be insulting -you just seemed so surprised by the idea that radiation could affect the health of local people and wildlife. > > Also: I understand that there is a certain base level of radiation all over and that all radiation/all amounts of radiation are not unhealthy for us. I also understand that in general nuclear power in and of itself is not harmful (although the waste can be if not properly contained). However, that doesn’t change the **fact** that excess exposure to radiation causes ill-health: > [http://www.houstontx.gov/health/osphp/Radiation%20Emergencies/Nuclear%20and%20Radiation%20Incidents.pdf](http://www.houstontx.gov/health/osphp/Radiation%20Emergencies/Nuclear%20and%20Radiation%20Incidents.pdf) > > I’ve cited my arguments. I would appreciate if you could back up yours. Watch the video in post #7. Also, there aren’t many local people a mile under the gulf. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/42 "2010-06-02T22:47:21Z")
You know things are going well when a proposed solution to a massive environmental disaster involves an atomic weapon. ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/43 "2010-06-02T22:53:18Z")
You have to figure that every engineer in the country - including those who work for BP and those who work in the U.S. gummint - have been trying to figure out the balances between the many proposed solutions and NO satisfactory solution. I’d say that it’s likely that we’re in for a long stretch of deliberations, leading to attempts at solutions, none of which will be universally palatable. And while all these functionaries with their calculators and dreams and balance sheets dither and deliberate, this thing will continue to spew, probably for many many months, maybe for years. We’ve met the enemy - greed. We’re fucked. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/44 "2010-06-02T23:01:23Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > You know things are going well when a proposed solution to a massive environmental disaster involves an atomic weapon. Koxinga likes this post. [thumbs up] ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/45 "2010-06-02T23:05:33Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > You know things are going well when a proposed solution to a massive environmental disaster involves an atomic weapon. Heck. The more I think about this, the more I hope a nuke does get used. It will be nuclear sciences version of Apollo 13. Take a disaster (that “we” didnt create) and save the day. The enviro weenies will wet their pants about teh radiation, while the average Joe will won’t see a damn thing happening except the oil leak being stopped. Its a win win win IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/46 "2010-06-02T23:11:21Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > You know things are going well when a proposed solution to a massive environmental disaster involves an atomic weapon. Using explosives on a runaway well is a standard technique. It’s not a weapon when used as a tool and it’s used as a tool in this case because of the space requirements of fitting a large explosive device in a drill hole. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/47 "2010-06-02T23:21:24Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Which are _supposed_ to do the job anyway. Come next February, when BP fails to intersect the wellshaft with its 3rd or 4th relief well, the feds might look at the less exacting requirements for placing a nuke _near_ the well and decide “what the hell, we’ve already got a hole drilled close enough for a nuke, let’s give it a try.” Hey, I _did_ say to get Putin on the line as a backup. BTW, what kind of yield are we thinking about needing, here? Would a [W80](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_%28nuclear_warhead%29) do the trick, or do we need something bigger? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/48 "2010-06-02T23:33:28Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > Would a [W80](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_%28nuclear_warhead%29) do the trick, or do we need something bigger? > [@](#): > > The W80 is a small thermonuclear warhead (fusion weapon) in the enduring stockpile with an variable yield of between 5 and 150 KT of TNT. Looks like a W80’d do it: > [@](#): > > [Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy) > one 30 kiloton explosion was used to close the Uzbekistan Urtabulak gas well in 1966 that had been blowing since 1963, and a few months later a 47 kiloton explosive was used to seal a higher pressure blowout at the nearby Pamuk gas field. W80’d fit in most well holes too: > [@](#): > > The W80 is physically quite small, the “physics package” itself is about the size of a conventional Mk.81 250 lb (113 kg) bomb, 11.8 inches (30 cm) in diameter and 31.4 inches (80 cm) long, and only slightly heavier at about 290 lb (132 kg). ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/49 "2010-06-02T23:36:12Z")
Why not place a giant tarp over the leaking well? The oil would pool under it, and could be pumped out. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/50 "2010-06-02T23:49:54Z")
Giant tarp, meet [Methane Clathrates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/51 "2010-06-03T00:42:45Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Why not place a giant tarp over the leaking well? The oil would pool under it, and could be pumped out. Pick whatever release amount to believe and multiple that by the number of days of containment before the other wells are drilled. It would be like a giant underwater hot air balloon trying to rise to the surface with all the gas coming out. On top of that it would make capping the well impossible. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/52 "2010-06-03T04:29:20Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Do some calculations. Tell us how much radiation would be added to gulf of mexico from one small scale nuclear blast deep underground and underwater… > > One blast is not going to decimate the local wildlife due to radiation. For that matter, you probably wouldnt be able to even measure the negative effect on the overall wildlife populations in the gulf. Radiation levels “might” exceed the extremely conservative values used for humans to ensure safety, but those levels are set so low that “extra” cancers “possibly” caused to humans exposed for decades to it “might” get some cancers very slightly above background levels. Levels like that will do butkis to animals in the wild that only need to survive long enough to breed a bit. > > On the other hand, it certainly appears possible that all this nasty crude oil WILL have significant, if not dramatic, effects on local wildlife populations… **billfish678** ’s point-of-view certainly seems valid. To argue against solving this disaster with a nuclear bomb would be like refusing a life-preserver when drowning for fear that the life-preserver’s styrofoam is carcinogenic. What _might_ be preventing such a deployment is a legal/political angle: What’s happening now is “BP’s fault”. After a major federal intervention, whatever happens will be “Obama’s fault.” ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/53 "2010-06-03T04:45:19Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > What _might_ be preventing such a deployment is a legal/political angle: What’s happening now is “BP’s fault”. After a major federal intervention, whatever happens will be “Obama’s fault.” Now, if that were offered as an excuse for inaction by the administration either explicitly or implicitly (on the nuke question or any other possible solution), then I think serious Democrats and Republicans would be calling for Obama’s impeachment. And it wouldn’t work even from a legalistic angle, anyway: I believe that regulation/oversight of offshore drilling and protection of the offshore environment are explicit federal mandates. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/54 "2010-06-03T04:58:29Z")
I am also for the nuke idea. It certainly looks effective in the video of the Russian gas fire. And that was with a crappy Russian nuke 40 years ago. The current US arsenal probably gives a lot more bang for buck and as a bonus, less radiation. As regards radiation, who cares? Anyone planning on going swimming 5000 feet down in the Gulf of Mexico? The oil is heading for the beach right now. The radiation won’t. As an added bonus, a nuclear explosion might vaporize a bunch of the undersea oil, cleaning up a large patch in one shot. Do we know if there has been any official consideration of a nuclear solution? However, I am also bearing in mind that every effort to shut the oil off so far has been a comedy of errors resulting in epic fail. So if a nuke was dropped in there I can picture it blowing the seafloor open, resulting in all the remaining oil gushing out at once. ---
**Author:** ![Sinisterniik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Sinisterniik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinisterniik)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/55 "2010-06-03T05:39:33Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > One blast is not going to decimate the local wildlife due to radiation. For that matter, you probably wouldnt be able to even measure the negative effect on the overall wildlife populations in the gulf. Radiation levels “might” exceed the extremely conservative values used for humans to ensure safety, but those levels are set so low that “extra” cancers “possibly” caused to humans exposed for decades to it “might” get some cancers very slightly above background levels. Levels like that will do butkis to animals in the wild that only need to survive long enough to breed a bit. I’ve cited my sources. If you can’t back up yours, that’s fine. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just saying that you aren’t going to convince me of your side by simply taking a contrary position. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, it certainly appears possible that all this nasty crude oil WILL have significant, if not dramatic, effects on local wildlife populations. It certainly will, and it’s a tragedy. I’m sure it will have a worse effect than the bomb at this point (and as most people have pointed out, the relief wells will probably be drilled faster than the bomb could be employed). I was simply taking issue with your assertions that nuclear blasts don’t harm wildlife beyond the initial blast. ---
**Author:** ![Sinisterniik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Sinisterniik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinisterniik)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/56 "2010-06-03T05:48:42Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#): > > Also, there aren’t many local people a mile under the gulf. I’m repeating myself, but I said that the possible threat would be to the local wildlife there. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/57 "2010-06-03T06:02:56Z")
As long as people aren’t harmed, why should we care about the local wildlife? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/58 "2010-06-03T06:05:22Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > As regards radiation, who cares? Anyone planning on going swimming 5000 feet down in the Gulf of Mexico? The oil is heading for the beach right now. The radiation won’t. As an added bonus, a nuclear explosion might vaporize a bunch of the undersea oil, cleaning up a large patch in one shot. It’s not detonated above the well, it would require another drilled well and the explosion takes place beneath the surface. > [@DWMarch](#): > > Do we know if there has been any official consideration of a nuclear solution? I was watching an interview with an ex Shell executive and he talked about collapsing the well as a last resort. I took that to mean a nuclear explosion. I imagine it would require extensive knowledge of the subterranean layers. The last thing we need is to cause a crack where billions of gallons spring forth. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/59 "2010-06-03T06:19:32Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Now, if that were offered as an excuse for inaction by the administration either explicitly or implicitly (on the nuke question or any other possible solution), then I think serious Democrats and Republicans would be calling for Obama’s impeachment. And it wouldn’t work even from a legalistic angle, anyway: I believe that regulation/oversight of offshore drilling and protection of the offshore environment are explicit federal mandates. I think you’re helping me make my point. There’s a _tremendous_ gap between public rhetoric and unspoken realities. ---
**Author:** ![Sinisterniik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Sinisterniik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinisterniik)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/60 "2010-06-03T06:37:42Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > As long as people aren’t harmed, why should we care about the local wildlife? Well, I don’t know what type of wildlife is specifically near the oil leak, but I imagine if there was really a problem caused by radiation it would first affect the plant-life on the ocean’s floor. The radiation could then be transmitted up the food chain in a similar manner as to my previously cited report linking thyroid conditions in native people to radiation in the soil (that went from the grass, to the cows, to the humans). It’s possible that there are no plants or deep-sea dwellers by the leak -in which case, it would be a moot point regardless of radiation leaking. However, life seems to inhabit our entire world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458.md?page=4)